comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: more re: If Ada isn't the problem, what is?
@ 1993-04-14 15:29 Wes Groleau X7574
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wes Groleau X7574 @ 1993-04-14 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)


In article <9304122053.AA10849@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes:
>.............. in a General Accounting Office report.  I have 
>...........
>The longest list is for "lack of well-defined requirements".  I'm not surprize
d,
>are you?

No, I'm not.  And that's obviously NOT Ada's fault.  A related problem not in
the list (or I missed it) is:

"Specs written by semi-FORTRAN-educated engineers who don't know the difference
between requirements and implementation."

Which means that programmers have to try to persuade management that "searching
a monstrous array of characters for a particular substring and using that
substrings location in a computed GOTO" is not really a requirement.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: more re: If Ada isn't the problem, what is?
@ 1993-04-16  3:23 cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!portal!cup.portal
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!portal!cup.portal @ 1993-04-16  3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)


>>   No, I'm not.  And that's obviously NOT Ada's fault.  A related 
>>	problem not in>   the list (or I missed it) is:
>>
>>   "Specs written by semi-FORTRAN-educated engineers who don't 
>>	know the difference  between requirements and implementation."
>>
>>   Which means that programmers have to try to persuade management 
>>	Ethat "searching  a monstrous array of characters for a particular
>>	substring and using that substrings location in a computed GOTO" 
>>	is not really a requirement.
>
>
>
>I have actually had a requirements document stating that a variable must
>be at a specific memory location.  It did not matter if the variable 
>was even used or not; it had to be at that location.

I like writing software problem reports to systems saying things like:
"remove implementation details from requirement 1.3.34.5"  :-)

Generally they seem to come back with something like "what implementation
detail" and I end up rewriting it FOR them to show them how to not
specify implementation.

Example:

	Was something like:

		Test memory in with incrementing address pattern.

	Becomes something like:

		Test memory with an address pattern calculated to
		exercise all bank select lines and address lines
		on every memory device in all memory banks.

This usually gets a response something along the lines of "oh, that was
what I intended to say in that requirement anyway. I didn't realize
the incrementing pattern was implementation detail" and they go off
an use my example as their requirement change.

                                        R. Tim Coslet

Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
        technology, n.  domesticated natural phenomena

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~1993-04-16  3:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1993-04-14 15:29 more re: If Ada isn't the problem, what is? Wes Groleau X7574
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-04-16  3:23 cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!portal!cup.portal

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox