Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP

[softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng)]

"Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b8a4jk$1v1t$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> "soft-eng" <softeng3456@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com...
> > It's the other way around.  Software engineering is a fake field
> > full of charltans, simply because it stands on a false premise -- you
> > can take anybody and turn them into good disciplined programmers by
> > applications of certain principles.
> 
> This is blatantly false!  While there might be a good deal of people that
> claim to be software engineers that are charlatans, this fact (if true) does
> not discredit the actually field of software engineering.  Furthermore,
> your claim the software engineering stands upon a faulty premise is a
> strawman argument.
> 
> >The actual fact is, results
> > in software are to a *very* large part related to aptitude.  If you
> > can't hire well, the project is doomed no matter how many software
> > engineering principles you apply.
> 
> True, software engineering principles do not solve all problem (they don't
> claim too either), but they are not worthless either, and yes, you need
> competent people in order to succeed in anything.
> 
> > Once you have the right people,
> > engineering quality will appear;
> 
> Eventually--the point of software engineering is to facilitate and teach
> methodologies that help the right people work more effectively.
> 
> > you just need to make sure
> 
> I think your use of 'just' severely understates the difficulty of
> accomplishing the below
> 
> > the design is good, the management is good (which
> > often means not getting in the way of good quality),
> > there is good quality assurance, and such less-than-flashy things.
> 
> 
> > So there are no "engineering quality" correct choices.
> > Some languages with straight-jacket mentalities make people
> > think they are rigorous, disciplined tools that will
> > make quality magically appear.  That is deluded thinking.
> 
> Nothing can prevent deluded thinking.  Just like nothing can prevent people
> from making silly strawman arguments.

What strawman argument?

I presented my _conclusion_ regarding the underlying fallacy of
the various "Software Engineering Methodologies" and why
they have been continuously failing for more than two
decades, while tools and language improvements have
had amazingly great success in that timeframe.

I didn't say the Methodology people made this argument.  (That
would have made it a strawman.) I just saw it as the
underlying premise (which some Methodology
people may not even realize) which ends up turning
the Methodology people into charltans (because they are
forced to come up with more and more false reasons as to why
their Methodology didn't do what it claimed... as well
as newer improved claims...)

You may disagree with my conclusions, but questioning
my integrity because of that disagreement is disingenuous.