Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:334 comp.software-eng:2162
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software quality
Summary: more about management's role
Message-ID: <16209@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 89 20:58:15 GMT
References: <16193@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <6756@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp, Boulder, CO
Lines: 30

William Thomas Wolfe writes:

>     ...It is 
>     *management's* responsibility to balance quality requirements
>     against other requirements when determining the schedule.

No.  Management assists in this.  Management makes the final call, but the
engineers are a major part of the decision process.  After all, it's an
engineering exercise to determine how long it takes to do the engineering.

Also, as I've pointed out (ad nauseam for other readers, I suspect), the
quality characteristics I've been talking about are not readily quantifi-
able, whereas the requirements I've been talking about are necessarily
objective.  >>In this context<< the phrase "quality requirements" is a
contradiction.

note in passing...I had said:
> > And what's this about advanced programming languages?  Wolfe has, in other
> > postings, been an outspoken advocate of Ada, which is certainly *not*
> > advanced.  
...and Wolfe dodges it:
>     Oh, then let's talk about how "advanced" C is, over in comp.lang.misc.

No, let's not.  I won't assert that C is advanced.  It's suitable.  Nor did
I assert that "advanced programming languages" were essential.  Try to
answer the question, Bill:  Are you advocating use of an advanced program-
ming language, or are you advocating the use of Ada?
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...No DOS.  UNIX.