Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!weyrich!orville From: orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Modifiability Message-ID: <1991Jun12.192329.1924@weyrich.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 91 19:23:29 GMT References: <11714@ncar.ucar.edu> <1991Jun7.165928.1903@weyrich.UUCP> <1991Jun10.130548.13815@litwin.com> Reply-To: orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting Lines: 36 In article <1991Jun10.130548.13815@litwin.com> jto@litwin.com (John O'Beck) writes: >orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > >> ...>2) The amount of work done prior to beginning coding should be minimized. >> [At first blush, this is contrary to conventional wisdom. But it is not >> really, if the coding environment supports stepwise refinement and >> consistency checks along the way. Consider the use of Ada as a PDL as >> movement in this direction.] >> > > How dows such a methodology allow communication between *many* programmers > on a large project? How are changes to be communicated to and/or > approved by management? Do all the bean counters need to learn Ada? > Stepwise refinement of what? Consistency with what? > I was commenting on Balzer et al.'s proposed paradigm for the 90's. It does not yet exist. Yes, communication and CM are problems. See comp.groupware and alt.hypertexxt for discussions of this topic. Stepwise refinement of the specification, of course. A useful formal specification language must have some construct of the form STUB(informal stuff). INTERNAL consistency; no loose ends. -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************