Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:340 comp.software-eng:2169
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!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: <6781@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 89 21:05:41 GMT
References: <16209@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 37

From rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn):
>>     *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.

    Engineers repeatedly provide information as a function of the varying
    constraint parameters which are specified by management.  Management 
    makes the decision.  Engineers then comply.  

    Notice: *Engineering* assists.  *Management* DECIDES. 

> 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.  
>> 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.  

   Glad to hear it.

> answer the question, Bill:  Are you advocating use of an advanced 
> programming language, or are you advocating the use of Ada?

   I advocated precisely what I said: "advanced programming languages",
   along with CASE tools and so on.  YOU brought up Ada, not I.

   And I *will* assert that Ada is advanced, within the domain of
   PRODUCTION programming languages; followups to comp.lang.misc
   if you'd like to pursue it.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu