* DoD STD-2167A? @ 1994-09-20 8:32 Dani Schnider 1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison 1994-09-22 21:55 ` DoD STD-2167A? TOM 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dani Schnider @ 1994-09-20 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard for developing ada programs or something like that. Daniel Schnider. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: DoD STD-2167A? 1994-09-20 8:32 DoD STD-2167A? Dani Schnider @ 1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison 1994-09-24 18:38 ` Fred McCall 1994-09-22 21:55 ` DoD STD-2167A? TOM 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1994-09-20 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <CwF6Do.HFv@eunet.ch>, schnider@pax.eunet.ch (Dani Schnider) writes: |> Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard |> for developing ada programs or something like that. |> |> Daniel Schnider. Well <looking down at his copy> it is titled "Military Standard Defense System Software Development" From page ii: "1. This Military Standard is approved for use by all Departments and Agencies of the Department of Defense." From the forword: "1. This standard establishes uniform requirements for software development that are applicable throughout the system life cycle. The requirements of this standard provide the basis for Government insight into a contractor's software development, testing, and evaluation efforts. ... 3. This standard, together with the other DOD and military documents referenced in Section 2, provides the means for establishing, evaluating, and maintaining quality in software and associated documentation. " The DOD mentioned is, of course, the United States Department of Defence. This standard, or something similar, is used for the development of most defence-related software in the United States. To my knowledge, Ada is not specificly mentioned in it, or in any of its DIDs. ...Whoops, I'm wrong. It is used Ada as an example in appendix B. Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES a use of Ada. <donning asbestos suit...> Did I answer your question? T.E.D. dennison@romulus.orl.mmc.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: DoD STD-2167A? 1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison @ 1994-09-24 18:38 ` Fred McCall 1994-09-26 4:33 ` Rod Cheshire 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Fred McCall @ 1994-09-24 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Dennison writes: >Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES >a use of Ada. Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the way of documentation. I will merely note that there is a strong move to do away with requirement of 2167A compliance and have DoD go to 'best commercial practice' in order to try to get costs down out of the stratosphere; I will leave the corollery back to Ada to someone else (but it certainly seems to apply). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden --------------------------------------------------------------------------- merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: DoD STD-2167A? 1994-09-24 18:38 ` Fred McCall @ 1994-09-26 4:33 ` Rod Cheshire 1994-09-28 2:20 ` Lee_Robert_Willis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Rod Cheshire @ 1994-09-26 4:33 UTC (permalink / raw) merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes: >In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Dennison writes: >>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES >>a use of Ada. >Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the >way of documentation. I will merely note that there is a strong move to >do away with requirement of 2167A compliance and have DoD go to 'best >commercial practice' in order to try to get costs down out of the >stratosphere; I will leave the corollery back to Ada to someone else >(but it certainly seems to apply). stuff deleted..... Not to mention those who blindly follow 2167A and fail to relize that it can be tailored to meet _THEIR__ needs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: DoD STD-2167A? 1994-09-26 4:33 ` Rod Cheshire @ 1994-09-28 2:20 ` Lee_Robert_Willis 1994-09-28 4:25 ` Wanted: Ada for OS/2 Scot A.C. Gould 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Lee_Robert_Willis @ 1994-09-28 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) >merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes: > >>In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Denni s >on writes: > >>>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES >>>a use of Ada. > >>Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the >>way of documentation. >Not to mention those who blindly follow 2167A and fail to relize that >it can be tailored to meet _THEIR__ needs. Usually the tailoring must be done way in advance, i.e. if you're going to tailor the requirements docs, you must get the customer to sign off on it before the requirements analysis of the contract. If your going to tailor the design docs, it must be done before the design phase of the contract is entered.... It has been my unfortunate experience that the people involved before phase X don't know or give a damn about the 2167A docs for phase X, and thus very little tailoring happens. :-( -lee Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Wanted: Ada for OS/2 1994-09-28 2:20 ` Lee_Robert_Willis @ 1994-09-28 4:25 ` Scot A.C. Gould 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Scot A.C. Gould @ 1994-09-28 4:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Because of the apparent demise of Modula-2, I am looking to learn Ada. - Are there native OS/2 compilers available? - Are there native DOS compilers available? I appreciate your suggestions. Scot A.C. Gould Keck Science Center Claremont Colleges Claremont, California ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: DoD STD-2167A? 1994-09-20 8:32 DoD STD-2167A? Dani Schnider 1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison @ 1994-09-22 21:55 ` TOM 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: TOM @ 1994-09-22 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <CwF6Do.HFv@eunet.ch>, schnider@pax.eunet.ch (Dani Schnider) writes: > Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard > for developing ada programs or something like that. > > Daniel Schnider. DoD 2167A is the military standard for Defense System Software Development. If you poke your nose into it, you will learn everything (almost) that you ever wanted to know about SRS, IRS, SDD, IDD, STP, STD, and VDD's [the list goes on!] That's how we document and develop software in the defense world. -- ******************************************************************************* / / /\ ---- Todd A Sorensen (505) 828-5611 / / / \ / tsorense@dasd.honeywell.com / / / / --- tas@dasd.honeywell.com / / / / / ---- ---- --- [Now a "dronie"] ******************************************************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1994-09-28 4:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1994-09-20 8:32 DoD STD-2167A? Dani Schnider 1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison 1994-09-24 18:38 ` Fred McCall 1994-09-26 4:33 ` Rod Cheshire 1994-09-28 2:20 ` Lee_Robert_Willis 1994-09-28 4:25 ` Wanted: Ada for OS/2 Scot A.C. Gould 1994-09-22 21:55 ` DoD STD-2167A? TOM
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox