From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 3 Dec 92 00:11:36 GMT From: olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!athertn!usenet@uunet.uu.net (Ed White) Subject: Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry Message-ID: List-Id: In article srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes: > > The November 30, 1992 issue of Computerworld, page 73, contains the > following article on how the DoD and the NIST are undermining the commercial > CASE industry in America. Another example of socialist bureacrats trying to The article in Computerworld was based on the following letter from Ed White of Atherton to Bill Wong at NIST. November 14, 1992 Mr. William Wong Senior Computer Scientist National Institute of Standards & Technology Technology Building, Room B266 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Dear Bill: The User Forum of the Integrated Software Engineering Environments held on November 9, 1992 at NIST was informative, but raised the following concerns by Atherton and its customers who are developing ISEE's. 1. Although more development is being done in the U.S. on ISEE's based on ATIS than PCTE, the leadership and User Forum agendas of NIST ISEE are dominated by PCTE interests. In the U.S. the major ISEE builders utilizing ATIS are Loral (CORCASE), Verdix (VADS APSE), GTE (PSE), and Boeing (CAPE). In Europe, CRI, with Life*Cycle, an ISEE based on ATIS technology from Atherton, has been the leading ISEE supplier for two consecutive years. These ATIS ISEE's were not represented in the agenda of the November 9, 1992 ISEE User Forum. 2. Based on presentations by PCTE supporters at the ISEE User Forum, it is clear that implementations of PCTE do not have the maturity of ATIS implementations. The time required to produce mature PCTE implementations and to build industrial strength ISEE's based on PCTE is estimated to be 3-5 years. 3. At the User Forum, organizations implementing PCTE and PCTE ISEE's expressed a desire for PCTE to support: (1) objects types with methods and method inheritance to improve ISEE development productivity, and (2) fine-grained objects types - enabling PCTE to store records as well as files. Performance is not acceptable for applications like metrics or change management if every record is a file. ATIS has these object-oriented features today. There are no ECMA PCTE plans to support these features. Based on the above information, Atherton recommends support by NIST and NAPI for a merger of ATIS and PCTE interests and technologies in the U.S. with the following actions: a. Change the name of NAPI to NAISEE. b. Include ATIS representatives in the management and agendas of your programs. c. Sponsor a merger of PCTE and ATIS specifications into an object- oriented specification. ATIS has the specifications for object types which includes fine grained and coarse grained object types, methods in object types, inheritance of methods in object types, and a message interface to the methods in object types. ATIS ISEE's have complete integrations for IDE's, Cadre's, McCabe's, CenterLine's, HP's, Interleaf's, Verilog's, Frame's and many other vendors' products as well as processes like 2167A that are based on real objects with inherited methods and messages. d. Support the activities of ANSI X3H4 and X3H6 committees, which are establishing advanced U.S. standards for ISEE repositories and Tool Integration Services. Bill, we appreciate the work of NIST and NAPI in advancing ISEE technology in the U.S. and look forward to working with both organizations to implement the above recommendations. To do otherwise will result in a 3-5 year program to implement PCTE followed by another 3-5 year program to change it to an object-oriented technology like ATIS. Sincerely, W. Edward White Vice President --