Software Engineering Ethics

Software Engineering Ethics

[Jeffrey Carter]

I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. 
They say they'll train you in C++, as if that were some sort of attraction.

Principle 3 of the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics says, 
"Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related 
modifications meet the highest professional standards possible."

Principle 6 says, "Software engineers shall advance the integrity and 
reputation of the profession."

Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these principles?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
06

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Cesar Rabak]

Jeffrey Carter escreveu:
> I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. 
> They say they'll train you in C++, as if that were some sort of attraction.
> 
> Principle 3 of the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics says, 
> "Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related 
> modifications meet the highest professional standards possible."
> 
> Principle 6 says, "Software engineers shall advance the integrity and 
> reputation of the profession."
> 
> Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these 
> principles?
> 

If porting code from one language to another would break these 
principles, we would be in mess ;-)

OTOH, if this post is trying to make a judgement of the relative merits 
of the two technologies/languages, you start to skate in thin ice.

IMNSO best use of this energy could be try to contact the ads' 
responsible and understand why this movement is being made.

my .01999...

--
Cesar Rabak

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Nick Roberts]

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> wrote:

> I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++.
> They say they'll train you in C++, as if that were some sort of
> attraction.
> 
> Principle 3 of the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics says,
> "Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related
> modifications meet the highest professional standards possible."
> 
> Principle 6 says, "Software engineers shall advance the integrity and
> reputation of the profession."
> 
> Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these
> principles?

Not automatically, I think. They probably are, in actuality, but the problem
is proving it.

I'm pretty sure the most effective way to evangelise the world about the
advantages of Ada (and about the problems with C++ and its siblings) is to
demonstrate to software businesses -- and their customers -- that using Ada
is cheaper (in the long term) and helps make the product better.

-- 
Nick Roberts

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Florian Weimer]

* Nick Roberts:

> I'm pretty sure the most effective way to evangelise the world about
> the advantages of Ada (and about the problems with C++ and its
> siblings) is to demonstrate to software businesses -- and their
> customers -- that using Ada is cheaper (in the long term) and helps
> make the product better.

This assumes that the market wants better products and is interested
in long-term effects of investments.  I don't think such assumptions
are reasonable.

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Alexander E. Kopilovich]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. 
> They say they'll train you in C++, as if that were some sort of attraction.
>
> Principle 3 of the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics says, 
> "Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related 
> modifications meet the highest professional standards possible."
>
> Principle 6 says, "Software engineers shall advance the integrity and 
> reputation of the profession."
>
> Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these principles?

There is a faith-based ethics and a caste-based ethics.

Principle 3, which you mentioned, reflects faith-based approach to ethics,
while Principle 6 reflects caste-based approach to ethics.

For an individual, perticipation in porting from Ada to C++ may (or may not)
constitite some breach of Principle 3, but at the same time it may count as
his/her increased support for Principle 6. Therefore, even for informed (and
not too hungry) individual this is a matter of rather subtle choice.

And after all. there are programmers/software engineers who are able to do
porting from Ada to C++ without a breach of any reasonable ethics... just
because they understand the matters deeply enough. (We have here in c.l.a.
at least one obvious example of such a person.)





Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:

    Jeffrey> I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada
    Jeffrey> application to C++. They say they'll train you in C++, as
    Jeffrey> if that were some sort of attraction.

A job agency that contacted me recently saw on my resume that I had
been involved in a Ada project. The representative said "That must be
really old...". I said "No, its relatively recent". No
response. Either he realized he made a mistake or he considered me a
total idiot for writing new software with an "obsolete" language. Not
sure which one, although I suspect the later.

I think many people treat Ada as an obsolete language, much like
Fortran (for example), without considering if this really is the case.
Old doesn't always mean obsolete, not even with the rapid progress
made in IT.

The ironic thing is (to the best of my knowledge), Borland still
support Delphi, which is based on Pascal, and Ada is based on
Pascal... I haven't heard anyone complain about Pascal being obsolete.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Martin Krischik]

Brian May wrote:

>>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:

> The ironic thing is (to the best of my knowledge), Borland still
> support Delphi, which is based on Pascal, and Ada is based on
> Pascal... I haven't heard anyone complain about Pascal being obsolete.

But they renamed it to "Dephi" to get rid of "old memory" and bundled it
with a rappid application development suite.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Jeffrey Carter]

Brian May wrote:

> The ironic thing is (to the best of my knowledge), Borland still
> support Delphi, which is based on Pascal, and Ada is based on
> Pascal... I haven't heard anyone complain about Pascal being obsolete.

I've heard Pascal called obsolete. For many users, the Pascal in Delphi 
is hidden, and even if they look at the code, it's called Delphi, not 
Pascal.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You cheesy lot of second-hand electric donkey-bottom biters."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
14

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[David Botton]

On 2005-01-09 14:27:04 -0500, Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> said:
> 
> I've heard Pascal called obsolete. For many users, the Pascal in Delphi 
> is hidden, and even if they look at the code, it's called Delphi, not 
> Pascal.


That is one of the goals of the GNAVI project (http://www.gnavi.org) 
you program it in GNAVI ;-)

David Botton

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Randy Brukardt]

"David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message
news:2005010916550316807%david@bottoncom...
> That is one of the goals of the GNAVI project (http://www.gnavi.org)
> you program it in GNAVI ;-)

OK, but it needs a catchier (and pronounceable) name. :-)

                 Randy.

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Wes Groleau]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message
> news:2005010916550316807%david@bottoncom...
> 
>>That is one of the goals of the GNAVI project (http://www.gnavi.org)
>>you program it in GNAVI ;-)
> 
> 
> OK, but it needs a catchier (and pronounceable) name. :-)

Starts out like gnave and rhymes with Navy.  :-)


-- 
Wes Groleau
Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Nick Roberts]

[Posted and mailed]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> "David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message
> news:2005010916550316807%david@bottoncom...
> > That is one of the goals of the GNAVI project (http://www.gnavi.org) you
> > program it in GNAVI ;-)
> 
> OK, but it needs a catchier (and pronounceable) name. :-)

I'm not sure that it would be worthwhile changing the name now, but the
project seems to lack a really bold, catchy logo. Ideas, anyone?

-- 
Nick Roberts

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[David Botton]

On 2005-01-10 17:38:54 -0500, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> said:
>> 
>> OK, but it needs a catchier (and pronounceable) name. :-)
> 
> Starts out like gnave and rhymes with Navy.  :-)

Actually I prefer to pronounce it: (silent G) N ah V ee - or sometimes 
pronouncing the g but still the same N ah V ee

Navi in hebrew in prophet. Sort of a play on Delphi :-)

There is a functional (but certainly needing more work) IDE now and GUI 
builder and of course GWindows has been solid for years on Win32. Once 
the IDE hits 1.0 in a few months or so I'll start work on a marketing 
package, etc.

David Botton
http://www.gnavi.org - Open Source Visual RAD

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Carter wrote:

"I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. [..]

[..]
Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these principles?"

In many cases, yes.

I once met a lecturer who refused to lecture C++ due to his conscience.

We often come up against resistance from people whose appreciation of the 
issues is almost non-existent...

On 2005 February 9th Colin Paul Gloster sent to Person X:

"[..]

Colin Paul Gloster said: "I recommend RAVENSCAR instead."

[..Person X] responded:

"       C is preferable for several reasons. To mention a few, the
language is better
known by the project members than ADA, the available code base for that
platform in C is extensive while scarce in ADA and, last but not least, 
the
ADA development tools for the Atmel microcontroller are unstable. Quoting
some of the references about the GNAT compiler available for this target:

"WARNING: This is still fairly experimental and only supports Ada 95
programming in an library less environment. A typical Ada run time system 
is
practically non-existant (and will probably never be). You should look at 
the
AVR-Ada project home page for more informations. The goal of the AVR-Ada
project is make the gcc based Ada compiler GNAT available for the AVR
microcontrollers. Although the compiler and the library have considerably
improved in the last few months they still have some problems. Do not base 
a
commercial project on this tool chain. Or if you do, do it at your own
risk :-)."

[..]"

There are not however several good technical reasons to not use Ada,
though I confess to not having been aware of AVR-Ada immaturity not least
of all because I have not used tools targeting Atmel hardware yet.
However, in fairness not everything from an Ada 95 runtime system is
needed and today on AVR-Ada.Sourceforge.net/rts.html it is claimed:

"GNAT Run Time System for AVR

Only a few files from the run time library exist. See the directory
rts/adainclude.

Future versions of AVR-Ada should extend the possibilities of the
provided RTS. This might include:

* Ada exceptions. There is already support for setjmp/longjmp in AVR-libc,
but I don't know how useful are exceptions in embedded systems.
* simple tasking (like in the Ravenscar profile). This should probably be
built on top of a small scheduler like AvrX.
Don't count on anything appearing in the near future!"

and if we compare like with like, exceptions are absent from C and even
G++ for Atmel does not support exceptions (
WWW.NonGNU.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_cplusplus ), and C does
not have tasking but it is possible to get operating systems which can
be used with C with tasking for Atmel microcontrollers.

A colleague said to me on 2005 January 26th:

"[..] how ever you should be
carefull with the avr-c library since some of the functions might act
a bit buggy. for example the printf functions isn't to be trusted.

[..]"

Unfortunately [.. a manager] said to me on 2005 February 7th that he
would prefer that I do not use the "optimal" (his word) language but use C
instead even though it is not planned that others write parts of the
software which I am to write and even though documentation about C has not
been submitted for Critical Design Review yet. So I will use C, but Ada is
better and RAVENSCAR better still (but not yet available for Atmel).

Colin Paul Gloster claimed: "UML is not good."

[..Person X] responded:

"[..] and for such purpose
is widely used in the software industry practically as the standard
approach."

UML is a notation, not an approach.

Popularity has little to do with perfection nor to checking whether a
predecessor was superior and already mature. Not that it will be practical
to use a formal specification language with people in the YES2 project, in
your spare time please see e.g. "30 Things that go wrong in object
modelling with UML 1.3",
WWW.DCS.Shef.ac.UK/vt/publications/by_title/publications_3.html "

Even the GNU C compiler (which instead of the commercial compilers, is
to be used) has some problems, e.g.:
HTTP://lists.GNU.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2005-01/msg00195.html
and is not ANSI C compliant; yet Person X had the cheek after 2005
February 9th to say to another manager that my preferred language's
compiler is unstable (and to me that I ramble on).

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Carter wrote:

"I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. 
[..]

[..]
Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these 
principles?"

In many cases, yes.

I once met a lecturer who refused to lecture C++ due to his conscience.

We often come up against resistance from people whose appreciation of the 
issues is almost non-existent...

On 2005 February 9th Colin Paul Gloster sent to Person X:

"[..]

Colin Paul Gloster said: "I recommend RAVENSCAR instead."

[..Person X] responded:

"       C is preferable for several reasons. To mention a few, the
language is better
known by the project members than ADA, the available code base for that
platform in C is extensive while scarce in ADA and, last but not least, 
the
ADA development tools for the Atmel microcontroller are unstable. Quoting
some of the references about the GNAT compiler available for this target:

"WARNING: This is still fairly experimental and only supports Ada 95
programming in an library less environment. A typical Ada run time system 
is
practically non-existant (and will probably never be). You should look at 
the
AVR-Ada project home page for more informations. The goal of the AVR-Ada
project is make the gcc based Ada compiler GNAT available for the AVR
microcontrollers. Although the compiler and the library have considerably
improved in the last few months they still have some problems. Do not base 
a
commercial project on this tool chain. Or if you do, do it at your own
risk :-)."

[..]"

There are not however several good technical reasons to not use Ada,
though I confess to not having been aware of AVR-Ada immaturity not least
of all because I have not used tools targeting Atmel hardware yet.
However, in fairness not everything from an Ada 95 runtime system is
needed and today on AVR-Ada.Sourceforge.net/rts.html it is claimed:

"GNAT Run Time System for AVR

Only a few files from the run time library exist. See the directory
rts/adainclude.

Future versions of AVR-Ada should extend the possibilities of the
provided RTS. This might include:

* Ada exceptions. There is already support for setjmp/longjmp in AVR-libc,
but I don't know how useful are exceptions in embedded systems.
* simple tasking (like in the Ravenscar profile). This should probably be
built on top of a small scheduler like AvrX.
Don't count on anything appearing in the near future!"

and if we compare like with like, exceptions are absent from C and even
G++ for Atmel does not support exceptions (
WWW.NonGNU.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_cplusplus ), and C does
not have tasking but it is possible to get operating systems which can
be used with C with tasking for Atmel microcontrollers.

A colleague said to me on 2005 January 26th:

"[..] how ever you should be
carefull with the avr-c library since some of the functions might act
a bit buggy. for example the printf functions isn't to be trusted.

[..]"

Unfortunately [.. a manager] said to me on 2005 February 7th that he
would prefer that I do not use the "optimal" (his word) language but use C
instead even though it is not planned that others write parts of the
software which I am to write and even though documentation about C has not
been submitted for Critical Design Review yet. So I will use C, but Ada is
better and RAVENSCAR better still (but not yet available for Atmel).

Colin Paul Gloster claimed: "UML is not good."

[..Person X] responded:

"[..] and for such purpose
is widely used in the software industry practically as the standard
approach."

UML is a notation, not an approach.

Popularity has little to do with perfection nor to checking whether a
predecessor was superior and already mature. Not that it will be practical
to use a formal specification language with people in the YES2 project, in
your spare time please see e.g. "30 Things that go wrong in object
modelling with UML 1.3",
WWW.DCS.Shef.ac.UK/vt/publications/by_title/publications_3.html "

Even the GNU C compiler (which instead of the commercial compilers, is
to be used) has some problems, e.g.:
HTTP://lists.GNU.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2005-01/msg00195.html
and is not ANSI C compliant; yet Person X had the cheek after 2005
February 9th to say to another manager that my preferred language's
compiler is unstable (and to me that I ramble on).

Re: Software Engineering Ethics

[Paul Colin Gloster]

I meant to write about Person X's resistance to replacing an error of 
using a unit of length for area but forgot to, so I post about it here:

on 2005 January 6th, Person X said to Colin Paul Gloster:

"[..]

        Thanks for the feedback. [..]
[..]

> I have placed comments in these files. To view them in Microsoft Word,
> please choose View then Reviewing then you can use the Next Comment 
icon.

        Here are the answers to them:

[..]

[..] The required accuracy of the state vector
shall be lead to a landing area of less than 500 km (3?)
Comment[by Gloster]: The unit km is not an SI unit and is not a unit of area.

[Answer by Person X:]        As indicated at the beginning of that 
section, that requirements 
are taken
from the [..] System Specification. As this requirement is written like 
that
in the system specification, so appears in this document. I'll forward 
your
comment to [..the manager who did not want the "optimal" Ada solution in 
news:Pine.WNT.4.62.0502271721520.-706617@PC3 ], but if the referenced 
document doesn't change, nor 
will
do this transcription.

[..]"



In article <Pine.WNT.4.62.0502271721520.-706617@PC3>, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
"On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
  
  "I've seen some ads for a position converting an Ada application to C++. [..]
  
  [..]
  Isn't anyone who takes this job automatically in breach of these principles?"
  
  In many cases, yes.
  
[..]
  
  We often come up against resistance from people whose appreciation of the 
  issues is almost non-existent...
  
  On 2005 February 9th Colin Paul Gloster sent to Person X:
  
  "[..]
  
  Colin Paul Gloster said: "I recommend RAVENSCAR instead."
  
  [..Person X] responded:
  
  "       C is preferable for several reasons. To mention a few, the
  language is better
  known by the project members than ADA, the available code base for that
  platform in C is extensive while scarce in ADA and, last but not least, 
  the
  ADA development tools for the Atmel microcontroller are unstable. Quoting
  some of the references about the GNAT compiler available for this target:
  
  "WARNING: This is still fairly experimental and only supports Ada 95
  programming in an library less environment. A typical Ada run time system 
  is
  practically non-existant (and will probably never be). You should look at 
  the
  AVR-Ada project home page for more informations. The goal of the AVR-Ada
  project is make the gcc based Ada compiler GNAT available for the AVR
  microcontrollers. Although the compiler and the library have considerably
  improved in the last few months they still have some problems. Do not base 
  a
  commercial project on this tool chain. Or if you do, do it at your own
  risk :-)."
  
  [..]"
  
  There are not however several good technical reasons to not use Ada,
  though I confess to not having been aware of AVR-Ada immaturity not least
  of all because I have not used tools targeting Atmel hardware yet.
  However, in fairness not everything from an Ada 95 runtime system is
  needed and today on AVR-Ada.Sourceforge.net/rts.html it is claimed:
  
  "GNAT Run Time System for AVR
  
  Only a few files from the run time library exist. See the directory
  rts/adainclude.
  
  Future versions of AVR-Ada should extend the possibilities of the
  provided RTS. This might include:
  
  * Ada exceptions. There is already support for setjmp/longjmp in AVR-libc,
  but I don't know how useful are exceptions in embedded systems.
  * simple tasking (like in the Ravenscar profile). This should probably be
  built on top of a small scheduler like AvrX.
  Don't count on anything appearing in the near future!"
  
  and if we compare like with like, exceptions are absent from C and even
  G++ for Atmel does not support exceptions (
  WWW.NonGNU.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_cplusplus ), and C does
  not have tasking but it is possible to get operating systems which can
  be used with C with tasking for Atmel microcontrollers.
  
  A colleague said to me on 2005 January 26th:
  
  "[..] how ever you should be
  carefull with the avr-c library since some of the functions might act
  a bit buggy. for example the printf functions isn't to be trusted.
  
  [..]"
  
  Unfortunately [.. a manager] said to me on 2005 February 7th that he
  would prefer that I do not use the "optimal" (his word) language but use C
  instead even though it is not planned that others write parts of the
  software which I am to write and even though documentation about C has not
  been submitted for Critical Design Review yet. So I will use C, but Ada is
  better and RAVENSCAR better still (but not yet available for Atmel).
  
  Colin Paul Gloster claimed: "UML is not good."
  
  [..Person X] responded:
  
  "[..] and for such purpose
  is widely used in the software industry practically as the standard
  approach."
  
  UML is a notation, not an approach.
  
  Popularity has little to do with perfection nor to checking whether a
  predecessor was superior and already mature. Not that it will be practical
  to use a formal specification language with people in the YES2 project, in
  your spare time please see e.g. "30 Things that go wrong in object
  modelling with UML 1.3",
  WWW.DCS.Shef.ac.UK/vt/publications/by_title/publications_3.html "
  
  Even the GNU C compiler (which instead of the commercial compilers, is
  to be used) has some problems, e.g.:
  HTTP://lists.GNU.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2005-01/msg00195.html
  and is not ANSI C compliant; yet Person X had the cheek after 2005
  February 9th to say to another manager that my preferred language's
  compiler is unstable (and to me that I ramble on)."