Enforcing good software process

[Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>]

"AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> writes:

> "W D Tate" <billtate@usermail.com> wrote in message
> news:ccf933d0.0304241145.2e224252@posting.google.com...
> > "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru> wrote in message
> news:<mailman.6.1051151811.13478.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> >
> > Actually I would prefer something akin to the U.S. Surgeon General's
> > warning on cigarette packages that could be afixed to the side of
> > every piece of critical-care medical equipment and airline cockpit.  I
> > shudder to think....
> 
> Actually, that could be quite interesting. Let's suppose that
> each and every manufacturer of a safety-critical equipment
> (such as medical X-Rays, Flight Control software or
> even ordinary traffic lights on you nearest corner) had to
> declare by law what language is inside and affix a prominently
> visible label on it stating so.

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.

The language choice is part of this, but only a small part.

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

> Let's take a poll: How many C/C++ advocates would *really* like
> those stickers? Especially when it comes to some critical things?

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).

-- 
-- Stephe