Re: Required Metrics

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <Bj7R4.8714$wb7.694404@news.flash.net>,
  "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:

> When a vendor says, "This requirement does not constrain me in
> any way", that's trouble.

A vendor can only say this if it is correct, and if it is
correct that the requirement is not constraining, then it is
not trouble as far as the requirement goes.

> "Committment" implies that vendors take some specific action
> in response to the requirement.

Right! Absolutely! YOu have to make sure you meet all the
requirements. Including documentation requirements in the
sense of the RM.

> As we've seen, that isn't necessary to sign the DOC with a
> clear conscience.

We have seen nothing of the kind. When I sign the DOC I am
very careful to ensure that the statement signed is formally
true with respect to ALL requirements, including documentation
requirements. Indeed I have often held up signing a DOC because
there is some small issue on which I am not satisfied that we
do not have a deviation from the standard.

> So, do you still believe this "moral" committment is being
> met?

Absolutely it is being met. The requirements are being met. THe
trouble is that, unjustified by the RM, Ken Garlington has some
idea in his mind that meeting them involves something other
than meeting the requirements of the RM. Fine, but not relevant
to the validation process.


> Well, I would hope less often that they used to -- I know my
> group has sworn off these custom contracts wherever possible.
> After having spent well into seven digits on compilers in the
> last 15 years, I don't think we'll be back
> anytime soon.

If you have spent millions of dollars on Ada compilers, and not
got what you wanted, then I would say the blame must fall on
you as well as your suppliers.

Again, this statement shows the fantasy you have that the
RM can ensure that off-the-shelf compilers meet your needs.
Now of course it might be the case that OTS compilers can
meet your needs, but if this is true, it is a reflection of
many other factors than the contents of the standard.

Perhaps the real trouble is the DoD notion of custom contracts.
It tends to be far too formal, and thus far too expensive.
What's needed in general is a more flexible, much less expensive
much less formal, but far more effective procedure, where, as
in buying a car or almost anything else, there is informal
discussion between the vendor and consumer.

In the GNAT context, there are very few users for whom we have
not provided enhancements to the compiler from time to time
in response to their needs. You have all seen the big list of
new features and capabilities that come with each new version,
and most of these entries come from informal discussions and
requests. In some cases, significant features are specially
costed of course.

But again, if you have been spending millions of dollars on
Ada compilers and have not got what you want, something is
quite wrong on BOTH sides.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.