From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/07 Message-ID: <8f3u36$dnk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 620272835 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8es65n$5hn$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <%MoQ4.7915$wb7.556168@news.flash.net> <8eulom$u8m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3914F1DC.A5EE1751@earthlink.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun May 07 14:20:31 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , "Ken Garlington" 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.