sani@wmt.UUCP (Sandor Nieuwenhuijs) (02/01/90)
Does anybody have information about a software development environment for ADA, called "Rational" ? Please send me names, addresses, numbers, or experiences.... -- Sandor Nieuwenhuijs | E-mail: sani@wmt.uucp Westmount Technology B.V. | ..!uunet!hp4nl!wmt!sani Poortweg 8, 2612 PA Delft | Phone: +31 15 610815 The Netherlands | Fax: +31 15 565701
billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (02/03/90)
From sani@wmt.UUCP (Sandor Nieuwenhuijs): > Does anybody have information about a software development environment > for ADA, called "Rational" ? The Software Engineering Institute has a technical report (July 1988) entitled "Evaluation of the Rational Environment" which gives pretty thorough coverage. The code numbers are CMU/SEI-88-TR-15 and ESD-TR-88-16. Copies can be obtained from: National Technical Information Services U.S. Department of Commerce Springfield, VA 22161 USA Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
loren@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Loren Rosen) (02/03/90)
In article <7861@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > The Software Engineering Institute has a technical report (July 1988) > entitled "Evaluation of the Rational Environment" which gives pretty > thorough coverage. The code numbers are CMU/SEI-88-TR-15 and > ESD-TR-88-16. Copies can be obtained from: > > National Technical Information Services > U.S. Department of Commerce > Springfield, VA 22161 USA > If anyone reads this (and by no means do I want to discourage any one from doing so if you're interested) bear in mind that it's two years old and a bit out-of-date. -- -- Loren Rosen, the token irrationalist at ... Rational, 3320 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara Ca. 95054 loren@rational.com uunet!igor!loren
ssawyers@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu (Steve Sawyers,212 ERF,,) (02/10/90)
From article <405@wmt.UUCP>, by sani@wmt.UUCP (Sandor Nieuwenhuijs): > Does anybody have information about a software development environment > for ADA, called "Rational" ? > I worked as a project leader using the Rational environment for developing cockpit flight displays at my previous employer. The Rational Environment consists of a special computer and operating system. The operating system is written in Ada and the command line uses Ada syntax so you are constantly imersed in the programming language. The operating system, the file management system, the source code control system and the compiler are very tightly coupled to the hardware. The version control system is also built in. The editor supports statement completion, on the fly syntax checking, automatic documentation generation based on a specialized form of commenting, and the abil- ity to require commnet and documnetation before a file is committed to compilation. The system supports incremental compilation. We were the first project to go full bore into the environment, and we took a bunch of Pascal programmers and winged it. The documentation generation was fantastic, the code completion minimized time spent with our heads buried in the manuals and the version control was flawless. My personal estimate was that it saved 30-40% of the time usually spent to do a project of this size (40,000 LOC and 2500 pages of documentation). Its expensive (don't remember the exact $$ for the cpu etc), but well worth it. You do have to watch for overloading the system and killing the response time. We found about 10 programmers was about right, 15 was too many. Steve Sawyers ssawyers@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu
dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore) (02/11/90)
ssawyers@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu (Steve Sawyers,212 ERF,,) writes: [stuff about Rational Environment deleted] >My personal estimate was that it saved 30-40% of the time usually >spent to do a project of this size (40,000 LOC and 2500 pages of >documentation). Isn't this typical for a government project?!? 40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages of documentation? Are you serious? 40,000 lines of code is 667 pages (at 60 lines per page). That's almost 4 pages of documentation per line of code, even if your LOC counter doesn't count blank lines or comments as lines. If ADA is such a wonderful, self-documenting, easy to code, easy to understand, easy to maintain language (as the government claims it is), then why are 2,500 pages of documentation necessary? -- Dennis Moore, my own opinions, blahblahblah
nettles@software.org (David Nettles) (02/12/90)
In article <4722@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.UUCP (Dennis Moore) writes: >ssawyers@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu (Steve Sawyers,212 ERF,,) writes: > >Isn't this typical for a government project?!? 40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages >of documentation? Are you serious? 40,000 lines of code is 667 pages (at >60 lines per page). That's almost 4 pages of documentation per line of >code, even if your LOC counter doesn't count blank lines or comments as lines. > >If ADA is such a wonderful, self-documenting, easy to code, easy to understand, >easy to maintain language (as the government claims it is), then why are 2,500 >pages of documentation necessary? > >-- Dennis Moore, my own opinions, blahblahblah Nice cheap shot. Though not familiar with the particular project, I have worked both sides of a DoD project (military and civilian contractor). Let me list some of the attending documents that are required as deliverables, regardless of language used. System Specification System Design Document Software Requirements Specification Software Development Plan Interface Requirements Specification Software Test Plan Interface Design Document Software Design Document Software Test Descriptions Software Test Reports Operation and Support Documents Version Description Document The government is going to get their pound of documentation regardless of how wonderful the language is. -- David Nettles
rgc@raybed2.UUCP (RICK CARLE) (02/12/90)
In article <4722@rtech.rtech.com>, dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore) writes: > Isn't this typical for a government project?!? 40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages > of documentation? ... > If ADA is such a wonderful, self-documenting, easy > to code, easy to understand, > easy to maintain language (as the government > claims it is), then why are 2,500 pages of documentation necessary? DoD-Std-2167 (& 2167A) is the true culprit here. Total ignorance of the project in question does not inhibit me from suggesting that its excessive documentation is caused by 4 related problems. 1) Dod-Std-2167 and its insistence on too many documents with too much detail, all to describe a single program (a 2167 CSCI). 2) The tendency of software designers to map Ada compilation units (ie, procedures, functions, tasks, packages) to 2167 "units" (2167A CSUs), thus producing excessive paragraphs in the 2167/A SDDD & SDD documents. It would be better to map Ada packages (or Library Unit Groups ala Kaye Grau/Kathy Gilroy) to 2167 units. 3) The tendency of software designers, using Ada PDL, to over-design practically to the point of coding. This causes every line of code to be part of the design. This tendency has always been a problem with software designers, but Ada PDL gives them the best tool ever for committing their sins. One solution is simple restraint, perhaps enforced by management. A more practical solution might simply be to design no deeper than package specs. 4) The failure of government contracting officers and industry proposal managers to routinely tailor 2167 to the needs of the particular contract. Proponents of 2167 have claimed (don't expect me to provide sources of quotes) that tailoring is essential to the successful application of 2167, but few contracts follow that doctrine. Rick Carle
jclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Jeff Clark) (02/13/90)
In article <4722@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore) writes: > Isn't this typical for a government project?!? 40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages > of documentation? Are you serious? 40,000 lines of code is 667 pages (at > 60 lines per page). That's almost 4 pages of documentation per line of > code, even if your LOC counter doesn't count blank lines or comments as > lines. > > If ADA is such a wonderful, self-documenting, easy to code, easy to > understand, easy to maintain language (as the government claims it is), > then why are 2,500 pages of documentation necessary? Hmmmm... When the users of *your* software systems need to learn how to effectively make use of your products do you usually respond "Let them read the source code..."? Wasn't somebody famous once beheaded for an attitude like this? :-) Jeff Clark Honeywell Systems and Research Center Minneapolis, MN inet: jclark@src.honeywell.com uucp: jclark@srcsip.UUCP DISCLAIMER: If you think I speak for my employer, you need serious help ...
mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) (02/21/90)
In article <438@software.software.org> nettles@software.org (David Nettles) writes: ` .... `>Isn't this typical for a government project?!? 40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages `>of documentation? .... That's almost 4 pages of documentation per line of `>code ... ` `Nice cheap shot. ^^^^ ? My arithmetic shows 16 LOC per page of documentation. Is this so terrible given the requirements of DOD-STD-2167A? What does it have to do with Ada? -- /s/ George vmail: 703/883-6029 email: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org [alt: gmitchel@mitre.arpa] snail: GB Mitchell, MITRE, MS Z676, 7525 Colshire Dr, McLean, VA 22102