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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e3222ec528646b1,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-25 08:25:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Enforcing good software process Date: 25 Apr 2003 11:14:20 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1051284570 7652 128.183.235.92 (25 Apr 2003 15:29:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Apr 2003 15:29:30 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36547 Date: 2003-04-25T15:29:30+00:00 List-Id: "AG" writes: > "W D Tate" wrote in message > news:ccf933d0.0304241145.2e224252@posting.google.com... > > "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote in message > news:... > > > > 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