Re: HOOD?

[john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe)]

ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be (Ian Ward) wrote:

<..snip..>

>I am amazed that you like the IPSYS HOOD tool John, I always thought
>it was really crap.

I didn't say I _liked_ it, just that it was far better than the HOOD
Nice one :-)

>I was once HOOD tool coordinator on a small, 115
>object, twenty man project, and we had a guy, claiming to be an
>accountant, demanding to be paid (have you guessed the slow paying
>company yet? Answers in private please, I do not want to be sued!!)

So you used to work for that lot did you?  :-)

>I almost choked with disbelief that they wanted money for it. However,
>they have had five years to sort it out, so to be fair, I can believe
>that it now works. It is good to see it has become a success, I will
>bear your comments for future reference. It is amazing that I could
>have been so badly tainted by poor reliability. It is not surprising
>that millions of people had left the Ada scene by 1987 with a sour
>taste in their mouths. Perhaps I should be a bit more forgiving, it
>is difficult though when one is not enjoying the work.

I've used a couple of versions of it over the last few years. It seems
to have got pretty stable, but it's by no means perfect.

>As I said in an earlier post, I think TNI's STOOD tool is the best HOOD
>tool I have ever used. In fact, I think it is the best tool I have ever
>used of any description, full stop, the cross referencer, it gets me
>tingly just thinking about it. Rock on.

I'm glad someone brought up this subject because I've learned of at
least 2 HOOD tools I'd never heard of before! (I haven't actually
looked into who produces HOOD tools as I've always just used what we
have).

>Come down to earth Mr Ward. - Ed

>So on the whole, I think it is a good method, it has it's faults but
>often the tool one uses is as important as the method itself. 

I agree.

Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>