Re: Required Metrics

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f3u36$dnk$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Bj7R4.8714$wb7.694404@news.flash.net>,
>   "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>
> > When a vendor says, "This requirement does not constrain me in
> > any way", that's trouble.
>
> A vendor can only say this if it is correct, and if it is
> correct that the requirement is not constraining, then it is
> not trouble as far as the requirement goes.

Apparently, we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether it's a
problem if the vendor decides a requirement doesn't constrain his behavior
(and doesn't even have to tell anyone which requirements he decided fell
into this category).

> > "Committment" implies that vendors take some specific action
> > in response to the requirement.
>
> Right! Absolutely! YOu have to make sure you meet all the
> requirements. Including documentation requirements in the
> sense of the RM.

Why does someone have to "make sure" they have to meet a requirement that
they've decided does not constrain them in any way? Do people who don't
drive cars spend much time worrying if they're driving over the speed limit?

> > As we've seen, that isn't necessary to sign the DOC with a
> > clear conscience.
>
> We have seen nothing of the kind. When I sign the DOC I am
> very careful to ensure that the statement signed is formally
> true with respect to ALL requirements, including documentation
> requirements. Indeed I have often held up signing a DOC because
> there is some small issue on which I am not satisfied that we
> do not have a deviation from the standard.

Now we're getting to the question that wen't unanswered before. How do you
do this? Is there a checklist? What criteria do you use to determine if
you've met all of the requirements that aren't part of the "formal
semantics"?

If there are requirements that the vendor decides are vacuously true, is
there any "moral" responsibility to either (a) verify this is the case,
and/or (b) document the decision?

--- AND THEN, THE OFF-TOPIC STUFF ---

> If you have spent millions of dollars on Ada compilers, and not
> got what you wanted, then I would say the blame must fall on
> you as well as your suppliers.

Oh, we always got what we wanted -- just before the vendor went out of
business. We're just tired of having to go through the cycle over, and over,
and over again.

You're quite correct that we have to shoulder our part of the blame. We
thought that Ada would naturally win out in the marketplace, because it had
all of these advantages over other languages, and so we were an early
adopter. Now, we know better. Rather than trying to drive the marketplace,
we adapt our requirements to what's out there, and to what vendors are
willing to implement on their own dime. Custom requirements are a sucker's
game.