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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-24 23:44:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.149.20.147.MISMATCH!mercury.nildram.co.uk!not-for-mail Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:44:35 +0100 From: Tom Welsh Reply-To: Tom Welsh Sender: Tom Welsh Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP References: <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> <8qkczsAcGcn+Ew83@nildram.co.uk> <3EA04A1E.CAFC1FEF@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0304221126.7112b7d5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.208.100.157 X-Trace: 1051253096 mercury.nildram.net 45181 213.208.100.157 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62642 comp.object:61921 comp.lang.ada:36522 misc.misc:13672 Date: 2003-04-25T07:44:35+01:00 List-Id: In article <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com>, soft-eng writes > >If Ada projects had actually succeeded in producing good quality >software, it would have been everywhere today. > Although I don't think this argument holds water, it raises an issue which I think is very important. Perhaps the most important issue for software development today. Observation suggests that good software products do not necessarily become popular; and the methods and processes adopted in successful software projects do not necessarily get widely imitated. Why is this? Anecdotally, we have the old joke about how any project failure is followed by steps including (but not limited to): * Punishment of the innocent; * Promotion of the guilty; * Scattering of the project team to the four winds; and (most significantly for our purposes) * Burying of the evidence. These steps are calculated to block dissemination of knowledge about what works well, as opposed to what fails consistently. Feedback is stifled, and learning prevented. How about successful projects? Well, for a start these are in a small minority - partly because of the syndrome described above. Moreover, some of the most strikingly successful projects are considered strategic (whether in government or business) and are therefore kept secret. Once again, the feedback loops are blocked and learning does not take place on any significant scale. The Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model - while arguably rather bureaucratic in its implementation - aims to strike at the root of the problem, by prescribing mechanisms by which an organization can ensure that it learns as much as possible from its own experience, at least. The CMM sets out to institutionalize learning. Of course, many people dislike the culture associated with initiatives like the CMM (and Ada, for that matter). So it is lucky that the open source movement is exerting a similar influence from the grass roots level. Open source developers do not nurse secrets - technical or otherwise - and, time permitting, are usually more than happy to discuss the way they work. There are, of course, many other reasons for the relatively low level of software quality - notably the absence of explicit demand (as expressed through the traditional medium of cash). -- Tom Welsh