Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Symbolic tracebacks on Debian (Was: About static libraries and Debian policy)
Next: Gnat cross compiler
From: Stephen Leake on 4 Jun 2010 05:09 "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene(a)yahoo.fr> writes: > Le Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:23:14 +0200, Niklas Holsti > <niklas.holsti(a)tidorum.invalid> a écrit: >>> What is CMM ? >> >> "... a development model elicited from actual data. " >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model >> > Ah, OK, that is a certification of quality of service (somewhat > comparable to ISO 9001) in the domain of leading/driving software > projects. CMM itself is a description of how to think about the process of developing software (or other engineering activities). It defines various levels, and you can get certified to those levels. But the important point is the thinking, not the certifying. Of course, many management types miss this point, and simply insist on being certified, while not allowing time for thinking. -- -- Stephe
From: Brian Drummond on 4 Jun 2010 05:27 On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake(a)stephe-leake.org> wrote: >"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene(a)yahoo.fr> writes: > >> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake >> <stephen_leake(a)stephe-leake.org> a �crit: > >> What is CMM ? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model > >>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane. >> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean >> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more >> reliable than the one its planes ? > >I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more >reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane. Some of the embedded computers on an airplane... My wife just returned from the States. She managed to crash one of the in-flight video games, which rebooted her LCD/TV/on-demand-video terminal. She gleefully noted a picture of a penguin scrolling past in the kernel boot messages... (and some announcements to the effect that "this module will not work with this kernel") Perhaps Ada ought to be more widely used... - Brian
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 4 Jun 2010 05:40 On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote: > "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene(a)yahoo.fr> writes: > >> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake >> <stephen_leake(a)stephe-leake.org> a �crit: > >> What is CMM ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model > >>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane. >> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean >> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more >> reliable than the one its planes ? > > I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more > reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane. I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical processes involved in production and function of the given component). On the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its production nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no probability associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges? P.S. One thinkable scenario could be to consider all possible states of the program. Let some of them when reached are considered as manifestation of a certain fault. The probability that the states were reached might be nominated the fault's probability. This model does not look very convincing. Especially, because it rather depends on the program's inputs, than on the program itself. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) on 4 Jun 2010 06:55 Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit: >> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more >> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane. > > I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The > technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic > nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical > processes involved in production and function of the given component). On > the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its > production > nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no > probability > associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges? This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say this can explains these statistics). -- There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check. --# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho; --# assert Ada; -- i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion -- and start with new conclusion as premise.
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 4 Jun 2010 08:23
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:55:00 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote: > Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov > <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit: >>> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more >>> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane. >> >> I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The >> technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic >> nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical >> processes involved in production and function of the given component). On >> the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its production >> nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no probability >> associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges? > This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say this > can explains these statistics). If you mean "lies, damned lies, and statistics" then yes. (Did you know that 90% of people died in car accidents had eaten cucumbers shortly before the accident? (:-)) If you mean mathematical statistics, then its applicability depends on strict conditions. Prior these established the statistics (samples) of failures is just a collection of anecdotes... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de |