Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:323 comp.software-eng:2142
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software quality
Message-ID: <6756@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 89 15:42:31 GMT
References: <16193@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 22
Followups-To: comp.software-eng

From article <16193@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>, by rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn):
> Of course good people will produce better software than bad people. [...] 
> But the professional won't do as good a job as if there were more 
> external interest in quality and less extreme time/money pressure.

    A long schedule can provide enough time to get a product almost
    perfect, but with very negative economic consequences.  It is 
    *management's* responsibility to balance quality requirements
    against other requirements when determining the schedule.

    At some point, the tradeoff must be made, and the engineers
    must then produce the best possible product within the specified
    minimum standards of quality and the cost and schedule constraints. 

> And what's this about advanced programming languages?  Wolfe has, in other
> postings, been an outspoken advocate of Ada, which is certainly *not*
> advanced.  

    Oh, then let's talk about how "advanced" C is, over in comp.lang.misc.


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu