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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,83c3aa00160f1010 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-10 14:46:59 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM!crispen Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: <9411101725.AA01942@eight-ball.hv.boeing.com.hv.boeing.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 11:25:07 CST Sender: Ada programming language From: Bob Crispen Subject: Re: Fortran to Ada Date: 1994-11-10T11:25:07-06:00 List-Id: Allan Plumb 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| +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+