HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krishnan@pms240.pms.ford.com (Hare Krishnan)
Newsgroups: comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Licence server products wanted.
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:43:49 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Company
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pms240.pms.ford.com

In article <1992Dec11.113330.5313@iesd.auc.dk>, tolboel@iesd.auc.dk (Morten Tolboel) writes:
|> 
|> Can anyone tell me where to buy a licence server package to be build
|> into the application I am working with? As a minimum the package
|> should offer the following functionality:
|> 
|>  - node locked licenses
|>  - floating licenses
|>  - time limited (demo) licenses
|>  - portable to (at least) the following platforms: SunOS, AIX, SCO-ODT
|>    and soon some other UNIX workstations
|>  - based on "hostid" when available or some other hardware protection
|>    for the SCO-ODT
|> 
|> I have heard of a product from Highland Software (used by some Sun
|> products) but I do not know if this product is available to other
|> platforms.
|> 
|> Please send me info of licence server packages and suppliers. If the
|> suppliers have European or even Danish offices please say so.
|> 
|> Thanks in advance
|> 
|> /Morten Tolboel


Talk to Bob Reynolds of Highland software @ 617-834-5933
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: average identifier length (was Comments: Code...)
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:00:01 GMT

mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com ( Phil Mueller ) writes:
[argument that you should use ii instead of i, so that you can find it with
a text editor, followed by suggestion that vi can find isolated i as a
token]
>So you're going to force everyone to use vi?
>AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

No, nothing of the sort, and dammitall, we've already been over this:  The
idea is to use a decent tool.  vi was an example.  If you want to consider
vi a horrible, archaic editor, I won't argue.  (I've used it for a decade,
but I'm a horrible, archaic man.:-)

Take it this way: If even stupid old vi can easily distinguish isolated "i"
from the letter embedded in other words, surely any decent editor can do so
at least as easily.

THE TOOL IS THE SERVANT, NOT THE MASTER!!!

(pardon that sticky caps-lock key...)

If the tools you've got are an impediment to writing and manipulating code
the way the rest of the world writes it, you've got crappy tools.  Throw
them away and get better ones.  Do not construct in your code misshapen
monuments to bad tools.

>I'm glad someone else uses the 'ii' technique.  Means that there's some
>code I may have to maintain someday that doesn't use 'i' <gag>.

The use of a single 'i' as an index variable spreads across more languages
than you've seen, and is backed up by centuries of mathematical usage.  It
*is* well-understood convention, and 'ii' is not.  This is not to say that
long-standing convention and historical precedent can't be wrong...but you
will need more than "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" and "<gag>" to justify flouting
so much tradition.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado USA
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:4940 comp.sys.sun.apps:2747 comp.unix.misc:4570
From: kaare@nft.no (Kaare Trefall)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.sys.sun.apps,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.questio
Subject: Which Software Configuration Management tools exists
Keywords: CM
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:34:55 GMT
Organization: Norsk Forsvarsteknologi A/S, P.B. 1003, N-3601 Kongsberg, Norway.

I am trying to find which configuration management (CM)
tools that exists today for managing software development
environments under unix. And I need your help!

I am going to evaluate the alternatives, and choose one for my company.
We are developing software on Sun workstations, using the languages
Ada, c, pascal, and with c++ coming.
We are using StP from IDE for the analyses/design phase.

We have been using Sun's CM tool NSE for some years,
and before that our own sccs based CM tool.

So fare have my main source been a news-article on the unix news-net by
Brett Chapman - G.E Medical Systems (blc@med.ge.com)
(among other news-groups on comp.software-eng),
a summary of an earlyer news-article asking for a Software Configuration
Management System.

The products mentioned there are:
- ClearCase from Atria Software
- TeamWare from SunPro Sun Microsystems (a NSE replacement)
- CCC/Manager from Softool Corporation
- CaseWare from CaseWare, Inc.   (Do someone have a e-mail address or
				  fax number to CaseWare??)
- TeamNet from TeamOne Systems   (Do someone have a e-mail address or
				  fax number to TeamOne Systems??)
- Aide-De-Camp from SMDS, Inc.

In addition I know about:
- Adele from Verilog SA
- Cadese from ACE Associated Computer Experts b.v.
- Vads Apse from Verdix Corporation (an Ada environment)

Do somebody out there know about others?

I am also interested in experiences of using the tools listed above 
(and new ones if any).


PS: There have been some problems in using "replay" on my e-mails,
    so please mail to: kaare@nft.no.

-- 
Kaare Trefall, Avd SUM (F4B4), Norsk Forsvarsteknologi A/S
PO Box 1003, N-3601 Kongsberg, Norway.
Tel: (+47 3) 738756, fax: (+47 3) 738560
E-mail: kaare@nft.no
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: C CODE LAyout
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:45:34 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: herbst@seq.uncwil.edu's message of 11 Dec 92 02:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.020200.944@seq.uncwil.edu> herbst@seq.uncwil.edu (R.T. Herbst) writes:

   On the subject of C CODE layout.
	....
    /*Declare external variables, functions, defines, and includes.
   Use comments as necessary to describe variables.
   */
   main()
   {
   /*Declare internal variables*/

   /* Execute*/
   }

   I like a format that leaves the code free from clutter.
   The code in K&R has about the rigth level of commenting.
   A good makefile will provide the relationship of main
   program and related files.

I don't know that I mean to start a style flame war, but (as one of
those people who had painfully to learn to write code with an
unprofessional lack of comments in order to keep from losing points for
"too many" comments in academic programming classes) I couldn't bear to
let this go unchallenged.  

If I read it aright, Herbst "likes a format that leaves the code free of
clutter" and therefore prefers to limit in-code comments to only those
few setting off the sections, plus some comments on the general meaning
of the code.

I frankly have always found it very difficult to believe that anyone who
suggests such a style has any professional software engineering
experience.  My experience has *always* been that, on examination, the
people who discourage detailed comments in code have spent their entire
professional career in academic settings, writing code in a small group,
with relatively little maintenance of code by anyone other than the
author, and in general with products of only a few thousand lines of
code.

In the more common engineering environment, in which code must be
expected to have a lifespan of several generations of programmers,
*much* more detailed code commenting is not just desirable, it is
essential. 
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: C Code Layout
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:03:24 GMT

In article <45360002@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
>That's because you view it as an open ({) and corresponding close (}).

Accurate enough.

>To me,
>such statements, while they require a close, should not require an open.

I disagree.  Symmetry is desirable in a language.  I detested PL/1 for its
requiring a ';' at the end of *every* statement - it implied that the 
statement "else i = 3;" was a valid standalone statement.

>In
>other words the assumption should be that I always have a compound statement
>and must tell the compiler when it's done.

Again, I disagree.  Since a compaund statement is lexically identical
to a single statement, they should have the same form.

>C required that I also specify an
>open but I see no reason to devote a full line to it!  I detest:
>
>	if (condition)
>	   statement;
>   statement;

I don't quite understance why this bothers you.  

>or 	
>	if (condition) statement;
>	statement;
>
>It's just too easy to misread the fact that C will only execute the first
>statement if condition is true.

This I agree with - it's far too easy to miss the statement on the end of the 
line and assume the second one is controlled by the condition.

>I would code:
>
>	if (condition) {
>	   statement;
>	} /* if */
>
>	statement;
>
>Note I label my terminating close (}).  Now think about it.  When eyeballing
>the above code and reading the if statement: Do you really care where it has
>opened or when it has closed?  To me the open is inconsequential: Of course it
>starts but where does it end?

I think that this is why I prefer the braces on separate lines - to make their
associations clear.  I dislike a comment that is placed for syntactic reference.I prefer comments be reserved for semantic clarification.  In some of the
code I've seen, there would be a forest of /* if */'s hiding the desired
semantic information.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Looking for a good speaker for conference
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:51:54 GMT

I am on the program committee for the 2nd Annual Arizona Business and 
Computer Exhibition which is presented jointly with the 34th Annual
Association for Systems Management Southwest Systems Conference
[March 15-16, Phoenix, AZ].

I would really like to find a speaker to present a technical talk on 
software re-engineering, reverse engineering, or design recovery.

The program this year is shaping up to have a lot of very good 
people in the areas of Real-Time, Object-Oriented Systems Modeling
and possibly Object-Oriented Databases and I would like to find someone 
that could give a good technical presentation on the above topics.

So, does anyone know of any good speakers/topics that you have heard
that I might try to contact? 

Note: we aren't looking for a sales presentation -- we are looking for a
technical presentation that would enhance our conference. But we have an
exhibit area that we would love to get more vendors for :-)

Any leads (or offers) would be most welcome,

Thanks,


orville

--------------------------------------           ******************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                           Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                         POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                        Voice: (602) 391-0821
Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net                Fax:   (602) 661-0660
--------------------------------------           ******************************
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray)
Subject: Re: Just how sophisticated should we assume progrr & her/his tools to be?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 20:06:39 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec16.004059.15927@news.arc.nasa.gov> lehman@george.arc.nasa.gov (John Lehman -- GDP) writes:
>
>>> [torturous discussion about the use of 'i' and 'j' as loop indices omitted]
>
>>I'm glad someone else uses the 'ii' technique.  Means that there's some
>>code I may have to maintain someday that doesn't use 'i' <gag>.
>
>So, there were at least 3 of us who were using "ii".  I'm not
>quite sure how sophisticated  --  e.g.,  \<i\>  --  I want to be;
>but lately I've been using "i" because it looks elegant (the i of
>the beholder), being the shortest possible name -- one less keystroke,
>times # variables times # modules times # programmers.  But I'm
>sentimental about "ii".
 
'ii' and 'jj' are neat substitutes which I hadn't come across before.
However, the above discussion still provokes some thoughts (flames?): 
 
- Compared to the overall time required to design, write, test, debug, 
  document, AND MAINTAIN software, the need to save individual keystroke
  time is minimal. Let's get real here - we're not (I hope) dealing with
  Taylorist efficiency of huge sweat-shops full of keypunch operators 
  in this discussion! 
 
- If a loop count is used SO extensively (or a loop is so long) that
  an editor's search function has to be used to locate all instances of
  it, then it's more than just a humble loop count. There's probably some 
  real (virtual?) world entity or concept it represents, and consequently
  it should be appropriately named. 
  
- Repeated use of the same variable name leads to unnecessary confusion 
  in data dictionaries, variable cross-reference systems, and so on. Many
  instances of database mix-ups between people with the same names or 
  birthdays are well-documented; why should we so arrogant as to think 
  that variable names are somehow exempt from this phenomenon? 
  
- The assumption that those who have to maintain one's carefully crafted
  code will use (or even have access to) the vi editor, or any other 
  given tool, is flawed. Unfortunately, it smacks of elitism and perhaps
  a professional desire to keep out the 'ill-informed'. [For precedents,
  look at the legal and medical professions.] 
 
John Murray
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: john@jlc.mv.com (John Leslie)
Subject: Re: Is SEI's CMM being used in Anger or just Marketing?
Organization: John Leslie Consulting, Milford NH
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:54:39 GMT

mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>
> Terry Bollinger writes
>
>       ... many folks seem to assume that the CMM is some kind of direct
>       carryover from the Demings work, only applied to software.  In fact,
>       the path from the Demings work to the CMM appears a good deal more
>       complicated (and tenuous) than that.
>
> It *IS* however very close to the teachings of Frederick W. Taylor and
> the Scientific Management theorists.

   I feel almost silly to point this out (perhaps a smiley got lost in
transmission???), but Deming and Taylor are opposite poles.  Deming has
been preaching against Taylor for forty years.

> [lengthy description linking CMM states 1-3 to Taylor teachings]

   I fully agree that CMM is consistent with Taylor.  And I agree it's
reasonable for DOD to be pushing CMM.  Taylor deserves a lot of credit
for the United States' pre-eminence in war-making; and it's likely that
the Taylor model is _still_ better than the Deming model for war-making.

> This was pretty much where the scientific management theorists left
> off. They generally assumed that you would reach an optimized process
> at this point because your process engineers would have figured it out
> when they got to the Defined stage. But reality showed that constant
> improvements were possible. This was the contribution of Deming and
> Juran, and that is primarily addressed by CMM at the Optimizing state.

   Here's our problem.  I'm entirely sure that the people who wrote CMM
4 and 5 have read Deming.  Probably they've even extracted a number of
good ideas from him.  It may even be an ideal direction for American
manufacturing to take.  But until I get a chance to _read_ CMM 4 and 5,
I'd bet against it.  They're trying to graft Deming ideas onto a base
really quite contrary to his teachings.  This seldom works well.

John Leslie <john@jlc.mv.com>
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: janzen@lichen.mpr.ca (Martin Janzen)
Subject: Re: metamodels, metalanguages, templates, domain models ...
Reply-To: janzen@mprgate.mpr.ca
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.203011.24702@sojurn.lns.pa.us>,
mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us (Mike J. Sangrey) writes:
>[...]
>There seems to me to be a certain set of patterns
>that, when incorporated into software, provide a great deal of
>flexibility and efficiency.  [...]
>   
>    What patterns should a software engineer look for and lean
>    towards using, when doing analysis and design of a software
>    system?  I'm looking for cookbook answers and justification
>    for it's inclusion into this cookbook list.
>
>       1)  read-write-open-close

Um, shouldn't "open" come first? :-)

>	2)  dynamic redirection of information flow
>	3)  ???

OK, here are a few that I've found myself using over and over:

3) finite state machines
4) event-driven processing (eg. X Window System)
5) control breaks in sorted input
6) mixin classes
7) Model-View-Controller

I'd be interested in seeing your "completed" list...

-- 
Martin Janzen                     janzen@mprgate.mpr.ca (134.87.131.13)
MPR Teltech Ltd.                  Phone: (604) 293-5309
8999 Nelson Way                   Fax: (604) 293-6100
Burnaby, BC, CANADA  V5A 4B5
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Is SEI's CMM being used in Anger or just Marketing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:06:10 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics) writes:
+ Dan Drake writes:
+ 
+ + but consider this: Deming's consistent message is that hundreds of
+ + companies have got into Continuous Improvement, outside of Japan as well
+ + as inside, and he loads his writing with success stories.  *Obviously*
+ + he doesn't think that a super-elite Level 5 status that virtually nobody
+ + has achieved is a prerequisite.
+ 
+ The CMM doesn't preclude organizations from making continuous improvements
+ anywhere.  

But, in the eyes of many of its supporters (I can't speak for SEI
itself) it does exactly that.

+ All it is saying is that if you are going to invest in these
+ improvements, then you will get your best return in areas that depend on your
+ maturity level.  For most companies this is SQA, Configuration Management,
+ Project Management, Project Planning.

Good advice, without question.  If you know that this doesn't put
everyone into some kind of lockstep, you're better off than lots of CMM
fans.  Again, I can't speak for SEI itself.

+ CMM provides a focus that Deming doesn't, with studies and rationale to back it
+ up.  I really don't understand this objection to the CMM; it's just a tool, not
+ a grade.

What has happened, of course, is that this sub-thread has become
detached from what motivated it: The specific statement, which appeared
in this thread and which I have heard elsewhere, that Level 5 is where
you can finally get to start doing Continuous Improvement.  I objected
to that, and still do, as a silly and destructive misappropriation of
the useful words Continuous Improvement, which have already been put to
good use by other authors.

Maybe we should get back to substanative issues.  I'll try to do my
part.

--
Dan Drake                 In software, the *complete* design *is* the software!
drake@Autodesk.com        --Hugh Lamaster
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: C code Layout
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:17:10 GMT

In article <AJ3U.92Dec17172600@onyx.cs.virginia.edu> aj3u@onyx.cs.virginia.edu (Asim Jalis) writes:
>I prefer the K&R style of using braces with statement blocks:
>
>    keyword (condition) {
>        statement1;
>        statement2;
>        statement3;
>    }
>

I used to use this syntax until once I forgot one of the { and it
wasn't noticable.  Took a while to find that bug.  At least..

    keyword (condition) 
    {
        statement1;
        statement2;
        statement3;
    }

is easier to spot.  It's also more symmetric, which means from an
artistic view, more pleasing   (I know, I know... subjective!)

-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com ( Phil Mueller )
Subject: Re: average identifier length (was Comments: Code...)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.080001@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com ( Phil Mueller ) writes:
>[argument that you should use ii instead of i, so that you can find it with
>a text editor, followed by suggestion that vi can find isolated i as a
>token]
>>So you're going to force everyone to use vi?
>>AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
>No, nothing of the sort, and dammitall, we've already been over this:  The
>idea is to use a decent tool. ....
>        .... you
>will need more than "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" and "<gag>" to justify flouting
>so much tradition.

You're right.  There is more to this than what I posted.  I've only
been reading this group for a couple of days; I should have waited
longer before posting.  I apologize.



-- 
Phil Mueller    mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com
The preceeding opinions are not necessarily those of Intergraph Corporation.
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: amby <amby@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: C Code Layout
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:18:01 GMT

In <2933199653.8.wk01673@worldlink.com> "Lih Yen Hsieh" <wk01673@worldlink.com> writes:

>Tom Johnson <tomj@monster.apd.saic.com> writes:
>>mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com ( Phil Mueller ) writes:
>>>       Author     Date          Description
>>>       -----      ----          -----------

	I prefer to have version control tools generate this.  Then it should
	be consistent with what I get from querying the version control
	system (we use CVS, which is on top of RCS).

>Inclusion of historical information about the module certainly helps track
>the evolution of the piece of code of interest.  Points of relevance:

	Only, when the username being used by developers is unique for each
	user.  While we use a version control system, seme developers have
	a history of making changes via "shared" usernames.  I never do that,
	but not everyone takes my advice.

>Practically, if you are in a production environment, this is not only
>a good thing to have, but also indispensible and should be enforced.

	By doing that, in conjunction with tools like CVS, RCS, or even SCCS
	it is a simple matter to document who is doing what on the sources.
	Also, I find it trivial to answer questions like:

	* What changes have I made since 1 Nov 1992?

		cvs history -c -D11/1/1992

	* What files have changed since last release (V1_0) on system xxx?

		cvs rdiff -s -rV1_0 xxx

	Of course, these examples are specific to using CVS, but you get 
	the idea.  I have scripts that do this type of querying, in order to
	write up my project status reports.

>If you are familiar with Unix tools, such as sed, awk, and the like, you
>can craft non-trivial tools together with revision control and the make
>program to somewhat mechanize this 'chore'.

	Or you can just buy a system, and let the vendor deal with it.
	Or you can use tools that lay on top of SCCS or RCS (which CVS does)
	to make it easy to manage whole directory trees as easily as one file.

-- 
Donald E. Amby
    don@amby.mixcom.com   (for short mail)        (414)797-6713 (voice)
    amby@eisner.decus.org (for lengthy mail)      (414)797-6533 (FAX)
    Harnischfeger Engineers, Inc., P.O.Box 1512, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1512
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng