Re: Fortran to Ada

[Bob Crispen <crispen@EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM>]

Allan Plumb <adp@CETIJSC.NASA.GOV> sez:

>  Oh?  Whenever I've seen people redevelop in another language (or the
>  same language) without paying sufficient attention to the existing
>  system, I've seen:
>
>    - many capabilities of the existing system are lost
>      (but of course everybody else has up-to-date requirements, right?)
>
>    - validation of the new system is iffy, since they don't have
>      anything to compare it to at lower levels

I have a feeling we're talking about the same thing, but using different
words for it.  By "redevelop" I mean start to with the requirements and
the design, but mostly ignore the code, except to see whether some
design got into the code without making it into the design documentation.

I didn't use the word "reengineer" but if I had, I would have meant to
start with the requirements and ignore both the design and the code.
Evidently you're calling "reengineering" what I call "redeveloping"
since you say:

>  I _know_ that no
>  capabilities were left out, because I have a trail from every FORTRAN
>  algorithm to the Ada replacement, or documentation of why it was not
>  needed.

which implies that you're using the existing design.  I'm afraid the
fault is probably mine in the misuse of words, so I apologize for any
confusion I might have caused.

No.  Wait a minute.  If somebody is collecting Government money
(= my money) by saying that they're "redeveloping" something when all
they're doing is recoding it (albeit from slightly larger chunks
than line-by-line translation), then I think they're circumventing
the purpose of the ASVP Final Report (and many, many others) which said
"thou shalt redevelop; thou shalt not recode".

Never mind what "reengineering" means; we knew damn well on ASVP what
"redevelopment" meant, and it didn't mean recoding.  I suspect that some
quick-and-dirty contractors convinced somebody that recoding was
the same thing as redeveloping, and therefore OK.  I think that's a
damn shame.

I don't agree that:

>  "re-code (that is, convert from line to line, Fortran to Ada)"
>  is or should be a straw-man argument.

since the original poster asked:

>Someone in my
>organization has inquired about a tool to convert Fortran to ADA.  Does such
>a tool(s) exist?

I don't think we should underestimate the ability of intelligent
and decent but ignorant folks to make all sorts of mistakes.  I'm
tickled to death that it's obvious to you (and to me) that line-for-line
recoding or translating is a dumb idea; I don't think it's safe to
assume that everybody knows what we know.

Like I said, I think we're basically in agreement, and that if anything
is a straw man it's:

>  Whenever I've seen people redevelop in another language (or the
>  same language) without paying sufficient attention to the existing
>  system

Whenever I've seen people drive without paying sufficient attention to
the road....
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Bob Crispen                   |   Who will babysit the babysitters?  |
| crispen@foxy.hv.boeing.com    +--------------------------------------+
| (205) 461-3296                |Opinions expressed here are mine alone|
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+