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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:5037 comp.lang.ada:4953 comp.object:2712 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Subject: Re: CSCs and CSUs Message-ID: Date: 13 Mar 91 02:56:21 GMT References: <1991Mar11.164855.24098@aero.org> Sender: news@Rational.COM Followup-To: comp.software-eng List-Id: I have spent the last three years of my career helping customers to do decent OO and Ada software engineering within the confines of 2167A. My basic position is that 2167A is essentially worthless, gets in the way of anything approaching a reasonable modern methodology (e.g. rapid prototyping, iterative development, interface definition, abstraction, modularity, reuse, Ada, etc), generates reams and reams of fundamentally pointless documentation, encourages a functional decomposition despite claims to the contrary, constrains developers to an essentially waterfall lifecycle model, etc etc etc. In short, it is an abomination and should be shitcanned, or at least heavily tailored. I was always amazed that the DoD did something right for once when it came out with Ada. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. 2167A is that shoe. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."