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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,c59f452174bd555 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c59f452174bd555 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Use of DBC as "executable SRS": scaling problems Date: 1997/07/31 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 260866544 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: <870209420.19031@dejanews.com> Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Card wrote: :I do not think that using DBC as an "executable SRS" (SRS == Software :Requirements Specification) would have ... I wonder whether there has been some confusion here over the use of "specification" in different contexts. Eiffel people use the term in talking about assertions. Ada people tend to associate it with SRSes. I'm not sure whether anyone advocated using DBC to replace SRSes. Probably, OO-structured SRSes have some potential and shouldn't be limited by scale, but replacing SRSes entirely by coded assertions may be going a little too far. Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au