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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e3222ec528646b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-29 13:12:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Enforcing good software process Date: 29 Apr 2003 13:12:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.76.54.22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051647163 19537 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2003 20:12:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2003 20:12:43 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36746 Date: 2003-04-29T20:12:43+00:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote in message news:... > 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.