Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!asuvax!mcdphx!hrc!gtephx!barriost
From: barriost@...!asuvax!gtephx (Tim Barrios)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Readability of Ada
Summary: only code [usually] gets maintained
Message-ID: <1991May2.160009.4861@...!asuvax!gtephx>
Date: 2 May 91 16:00:09 GMT
References: <jls.671858932@rutabaga> <619@pickerel.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Lines: 43

In article <619@pickerel.UUCP>, hinton@gca.UUCP (Edward Hinton) writes:
> > >Not really. The vast majority of work on software that goes on (like,
> > >about 70%) is MAINTENANCE. This is often performed by underpaid,
> > >underskilled, and overwhelmed junior programmers, many of whom are
> > >unfamiliar with the original design, weren't around when "clever"
> > >decisions were initially made, etc. To NOT program from the outset
> > >with an eye toward making the job easier for the downstream maintainer
> > >is criminal.
> Ahhhhh, now we get to something that's actually important.  Any language
> can be readable/maintainable to those 'fluent' in the language if the code
> is written to that end AND THE READER UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
> Comprehension needs to start with documentation using diagrams and English text
> and then be followed by code which cleanly implements what is described.
> I know this may be foreign to those whose only goal is number of KLOC they
> write (no flames, please), but I am foolish enough to believe what I was
> taught in my MSE degree program (as opposed to MSCS).  That is, the real
> documentation is NOT the code.  Given this axiom, it seems that the choice of
> implementation language is best made according to the tools available and
> the anticipated skils of those doing the programming.

yes, now we are getting somewhere!  i agree that in new development,
the language itself is not as important as things like design
representations but in software maintenance (70% of the picture),
usually, the only thing that is REALLY up to date is the code.  for
this reason, i would prefer CASE tools that keep a one-to-one mapping
between design deliverables and source code rather than generating
source code (specifications, .h files) from the design.  if we had to
go only in one direction, i'd prefer to generate the detailed design
from the source code (can you say Ada PDL?).  i understand that tools
like this are available in both languages (Ada: PDLs, Rational
environment; C++: Pilot (?)).

the real issue in this discussion is the software engineering which,
in the real world, is [at least] 70% maintenance.  the technologies
supporting software development (CASE, languages, OO*) should be
more concerned about software maintenance rather than the relatively
insignificant part (initial development).

-- 
Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!barriost
Internet: gtephx!barriost@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
voice: (602) 582-7101        fax:   (602) 581-4022