Re: Enforcing good software process

[kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)]

Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<uu1cmfw37.fsf_-_@nasa.gov>...
> I think the best way to achieve higher quality software is to allow
> people to sue manufacturers for negligence when they don't follow
> accepted software production processes. Just as a surgeon can be sued
> when he screws up, but can't when he follows the rules (even if the
> patient dies), we need good "rules" for writing software that can be
> enforced by lawsuits.

Manufacturers can be sued for negligence when a software-controlled
product with an explicit or implied guarantee of safety malfunctions. 
But you can't sue Microsoft because you connected some safety-critical
device to a controller installed on a PC running Windows, and Windows
subsequently crashed.  If you want someone to write and guarantee
software for safety-critical applications, they will do it, but they
will want a lot of money.  Personally, I'm happy to be able to be able
to license highly functional operating systems for under $100, or even
for free.

> The Capability Maturity Model is a start on a process for defining
> such rules.

No process can guarantee software correctness, except perhaps actually
proving that the software is correct.  Even then the proof may be
incorrect.
 
> I'd much prefer CMM level 3 or above, independent of language.
> 
> ISO 9000 would also be a comfort, but less so (I've seen really bad
> code from ISO 9000 certified shops).

And I predict you'll also see really bad code from CMM level 3 shops.
Certification has never been a guarantee of competence in any field.