From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@...>
Date: 2008-04-17T14:25:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Ada vs Ruby

"Eleanor McHugh" <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote in message 
news:28AE88BF-5240-4A14-A371-A4C09A466FBD@games-with-brains.com...
> On 16 Apr 2008, at 17:57, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>> I'd be interested in the kinds of trade offs have to be made in this
>> particular problem domain (since I can't speak from experience, and
>> never claimed to, either, and didn't mean to imply as much).
>>
>> I haven't worked on anything more mission critical than CRUD style
>> apps,
>> and I can only infer from my knowledge what kind of problems
>> development
>> teams face.
>>
>> Still, it seems to be that no level of genius can create software as
>> is
>> necessary for the Space Shuttle or a more average airplane, without
>> the
>> level of testing the NASA or Boeing brings to bear for their software.
>
> Oh definitely. Testing that code performs correctly is essential to
> any embedded development process, as is validating that the code
> written solves the correct problem. The latter is by far the more
> difficult though.
[ SNIP ]

On the latter note - validation as opposed to verification - it's important 
to add that strictly speaking requirements should address the user's real 
needs, not what the user thinks they are. Raise your hand if you've ever 
worked on a project where you got some (ostensibly) fairly clear 
requirements from a client, built an application that validates, presented 
it to the client, and found out they really wanted something else.

It's why good business analysts should be worth more than architects or 
coders. For the record, I'm not a BA - I just recognize their value.

AHS