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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: f43e6,899fc98b2883af4a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-13 06:53:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Quality systems (Was: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died)) Date: 13 May 2003 06:53:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> <17cd177c.0305072114.24f04783@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com> <7507f79d.0305121629.5b8b7369@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.8.249.133 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1052834001 14533 127.0.0.1 (13 May 2003 13:53:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 May 2003 13:53:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63658 comp.object:63301 comp.lang.ada:37279 misc.misc:14128 comp.software-eng:19147 Date: 2003-05-13T13:53:21+00:00 List-Id: "John R. Strohm" wrote: > "Willard Thompson" wrote: >> One big question that no one knows the exact answer to is >> how exactly does the software process quality lead to >> software product quality? We most certainly know that >> process quality affects product quality, that is obvious. >> To attempt to answer such a question, I think would >> require mountains of formal and rigorous process >> documentation over the life time of many projects for >> tracking/comparing purposes, which is only half the >> battle. I think the other half is maintenance, to be >> able to trace a newly discovered bug back via the >> documented development process to properly identify not >> only the exact location in code but abstraction and >> reasoning as well. > That is PRECISELY what the higher levels of the Capability > Maturity Model are all about. Part of what you are doing > at the higher levels is tracking defect causes, and > adapting the ongoing software process to kill the process > errors that allowed the defects to happen and escape > immediate detection. Nuts, I sat up all night, and you _still_ beat me to that answer! Let me just add that the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model text (the formal title is longer than that), and the subsequent white papers and refereed journal articles showing the results of following it, and giving more in-detail "how it works in the shop" data, should be a part of any serious programmer's knowledge base, just to understand what is _possible_ with continuous process improvement programs in the software development field, and with luck to start practicing it. xanthian, who lent his copy to a friend, then got canned and never saw it again: next time, for sure, I chain it to my desk at the same time I nail my shoes to the floor.