Re: A Brief Look at History

Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
> 
>> The professionalism of putting the mission first is primary.
Programmers
>> often don't understand this.
> 
> If the mission comes first it has to be successful in all respects.

Yes.

> Not just
> its production but also its integrity.

Yes, but that integrity has to be judged from the mission standpoint. 
Standards don't capture the fundamental software problem I face: in an 
environment that includes radiation induced upsets, garbled input data, 
and operator error, the software must not do anything catastrophically 
dysfunctional. The excuse "garbage in garbage out" won't wash: some 
garbage out is harmless, some is lethal (and there's no simple way to 
tell the difference).

> Without adherence to standards there
> can be no assurity of that integrity and getting agreement on standards
is
> just part of what you have to do in order to ensure a successful
outcome.
> There is more than just whether or not the system will work. There is
the
> long term reputation of the companies and personnel involved.

Yes. For institutions, the issue is really CYA, not accompli****ng the 
mission. But then, the standards depend on the institution, and often 
you can't budge them.

> 
> As to how inter company agreements on standards come about, that is down
to
> how the contracts are pulled together. All do***entation and
deliverables
> between companies ought to be considered as part and parcel of the
> contractual arrangements (otherwise why would any company do it). I have
> been with companies who had it in the contract that responses to
technical
> questions would be received from the client within 7 days, using a
> contractually specified form. The use of specific coding and
do***entation
> standards would also be in such contracts.
> 

Why do you imagine the only entities involved are companies? Ever deal 
with a foreign academic research lab?

-- 
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor 
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to 
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.