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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c03e01a669cc28b3,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-25 06:58:09 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!COMPUSERVE.COM!73672.2025 Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: <940925135303_73672.2025_DHR50-1@CompuServe.COM> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 09:53:04 EDT Sender: Ada programming language From: Ken Garlington <73672.2025@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: 2167A Comments: To: "comp.lang.ada" Date: 1994-09-25T09:53:04-04:00 List-Id: Fred McCall writes: << Not to mention its [DoD-STD-2167A's] insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the way of documentation. >> Unless, of course, you tailor that documentation to fit your needs. Of course, everyone knows that if you do NO documentation, you get really low development costs. (Life cycle costs are a different question, but that always seems to be somebody else's problem. ;) It's going to be interesting to see what happens if DoD dumps Dod-STD-2167A (and DoD-STD-SDD), but insists on an SEI III process (and to a lesser extent one that incorporates the ISO 9000 series guidebook on software quality). Humphrey's book implies that there's still plenty of documentation required for a good project. Of course, he makes explicit things that 2167A assumes you already know, like the importance of automating documentation as a by-product of the process, etc. It's also going to be interesting to see if the Government decides to adopt another "best commercial practice" - the company that builds the software also gets to maintain it. If Microsoft had to turn over maintenance of their products to DoD, what would they cost and what would Microsoft's documentation look like? I've seen "best commericial practice" in action. A very large commercial computer company recently released a product to us that was completely unusable. After meeting with this company, they've decided to actually hire someone to test this product before it ships, and to write down the test cases before they are performed. I certainly can see where "best commercial practice" is cheap, all right. BTW, Ada is a commercial standard (and public law), so there isn't a corollary to the use of DoD-STD-xxxx.