HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on "six-sigma" system
Keywords: sigma
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:01:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct9.085040.2992@cbfsb.cb.att.com> djones@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.jones) writes:
>
>Has anybody heard of "six-sigma" ?
>
>What is it ?
>
>Any references ?
>
>Many thanks
>
>- Dave
>
>
>----------
>David G Jones            |    Voice: +44 666 832273
>AT&T Network Systems     | Internet: mltsa!djones@mlgtw.att.com
>Swindon Road             |     UUCP: {...att...}!mlgtw!mltsa!djones
>Malmesbury               |
>ENGLAND                  |

This is the Quality Program of Motorola.  It may be proprietary
information of Motorola Corporation (HQ:  Schaumberg, Illinois USA).

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!
Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:3735 eunet.news:99
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Do Software Engineers Actualy Do So Badly?
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:13:33 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <ALANB.92Oct12152121@sdlhpp2.sdl.mdcbbs.com> alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:

>> Even more of a problem is that too many software developers don't
>> design with changing requirements in mind.  When a product requires
>> 250 data elements, they write "250" as the array size throughout
>> the product (even worse, a few places they'll write 251, 500, or
>> 2001).  Real examples are much more perverse, of course, but boil
>> down to the same issue.
>
>Changing #define MAX_ELEMENTS 250 to #define MAX_ELEMENTS 3000 is
>trivial.  Changing /* linear search along linked list */ to /* lookup
>in balanced tree */ is harder (and might have been a waste of time
>for the small data set).

OO design is often touted as promoting reuse.  This is usually seen as
reusing the code in an existing class when you want to create
something similar.  However this misses the point.  If you can create
a new class with a different implementation (and maybe slightly
different semantics) to an existing class but with the same formal
interface then you can reuse all the code out there which needs that
interface.  And there is going to be far more client code for a useful
interface than there is code behind that interface.

So in the example above, the original code would have created an
instance of a linear list lookup table.  Changing this to using a
balanced tree would be a matter of changing the type in the create
statement.

Of course, the library designer must have provided classes with this
kind of common interface in mind.  And if the programmer has been dumb
enough to write table lookups by iterating through a simple linked
list then you have problems.  But this is the same sort of stupidity
as using "251" instead of "MAX_ELEMENTS+1" in the code.  We can't stop
programmers writing bad code, but we can make it possible to write
good code.


Blatently commercial plug:

I will be talking more about this and other aspects of OO library
design in a tutorial at TOOLS Europe 93.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: distributed testing tools?
Keywords: distributed test tools
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:10:57 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep30.172037.21661@osf.org> bvs@osf.org (Brian Van Schaick) writes:
>
>Does anyone know of any distributed test environment toolkits/scaffolds? What we're looking for is a test scaffold in the public domain (or soon to be in the public domain) that supports testing in a distributed computing environment. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Please direct all replies to me via email: bvs@osf.org or uunet!osf.org!bvs.
>
>Thanks.


Brian:

It was my understanding that OSF developed something called D-TET,
or Distributed TET (TET is the X/Open standard Test Environment Toolkit).

I also understand that it was evaluated and found to be seriously
lacking in functionality and quality.  Is the OSF going to fix D-TET,
or is the OSF going to simply scrap the idea and move to some other
"industry standard test system."

The question is relevent, because many companies are standardizing
on TET, knowing full well that the current version is doesn't support
distributed operations, but expecting that at some time in the (hopefully
near) future it will.

The topic of "how to design a distributed test system" is one worth
exploring -- it can be done inexpensively, or it can be very elaborate
and use rpc, sockets, transport you wish.  It would be VERY helpful if
you sent out a Requirements Specification for such a system so that people
wouldn't waste your time and their's offering up inadequate solutions
to an unspecified problem set.

Best Regards,

Alan
--
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!
-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: lehman@george.arc.nasa.gov (John Lehman -- GDP)
Subject: Copying.[Was:Re: Properties of software, _not_ systems]
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:05:48 GMT

It's true, that the complexities of "copying" are hard for neophytes to 
appreciate!  For example, copying a 9-track tape:  I never could discover
a way to simply _duplicate_ an entire tape regardless of its format or
content; but I heard lots of variations and performed various techniques
to deal with complexities of tapes when copying.  I still think there
must be some way to simply copy all bits and gaps from one tape to
another.  How would you do it on your system?  If it is indeed not
practical, then is this a characteristic of tape drives that they
can't do a simple task simply?

lehman@ames.arc.nasa.gov  [No wasteful 4-line signature.] [Got religion.]
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: kmf@fssun09.dev.oclc.org (Kevin Flash)
Subject: Need Statistical Process Control Information
Organization: OCLC, Dublin Ohio.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:39:34 GMT

I am looking for some practical examples of statistical process control used
in the software development process, and references to reading material
about them. I am interested in examples where companies have set up a 
process control model - what they decided to measure, why they measured it, 
and any benefits they derived from using the data to improve their development
process. Also references to materials I could read about the application of
statistical process control to software development would also be 
appreciated.  



Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: marick@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Brian Marick)
Subject: Re: Code Inspections and Walkthroughs (followup)
Keywords: inspections, walkthrough, verification, validation, Fagan
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:50:27 GMT

martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) writes:

>Please supply the anon ftp locations for Ellemtel's and Maricks' works.

The following are available via anonymous FTP from cs.uiuc.edu.  They
are in the directory pub/testing.

GCT.README		Instructions on getting the Generic Coverage Tool,
			which measures branch, loop, routine, multicondition,
			race, etc, coverage for C programs.

experience.ps.Z		A paper, "Experience with the Cost of
			Different Coverage Goals for Testing".
			Compressed postscript.

inspect.n, inspect.ps	The inspection checklist.

podgurski.ps.Z		A nice paper by Andy Podgurski, on the relationship
			between proving, conventional testing, and statistical
			testing/reliability.  Compressed postscript.

three.ps.Z		A paper, "Three Ways to Improve Your Testing",
			associated with a tutorial I'm giving 
			at the Pacific Northwest Software Quality
			Conference.  Compressed postscript.
		
While I'm at it, I should mention that I run a testing mailing list:

Testing-Research@cs.uiuc.edu   
   Testing-Research is a forum for testing researchers to discuss
   current and future research.  Since testing is one of the most
   down-to-earth kinds of software engineering research, testing
   practitioners are welcomed.  Messages about practice should be the
   kind that can guide or improve research; messages that can improve
   practice should go in comp.software-eng.  This list is unmoderated.

   Send administrative requests to Testing-Research-Request@cs.uiuc.edu.

It's pretty lifeless, I'm afraid.

Brian Marick, marick@cs.uiuc.edu, uiucdcs!marick, marick@testing.com (pending)
Testing Foundations:  Consulting, Training, Tools.
Freeware test coverage tool:  see cs.uiuc.edu:pub/testing/GCT.README
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software Inspections
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:09:17 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
+ In article <ld8pd6INNqti@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM+, chrisp@regenmeister.Sun.COM (Chris Prael) writes:
+ + From article <torres.718340429@yacht+, by torres@ee.fit.edu (Francisco Torres):
+ ++ I am taking a course in Software Engineering and have been asked to write a report on
+ ++ Software Inspections.  However, I have been unable to find any information on the subject.
+ ++ I would apprectiate any help that could be provided from people in this group.  I do not
+ ++ really know what Software Inspections are, but I have been told that they are essentially
+ ++ meetings where a group of people examine the code of a project line by line and question
+ ++ some of the decisions that were made.  I would appreciate any information either as a posting
+ ++ to this news group or as an E-Mail response.
+ + The concept was introduced in the book "The Psychology of Computer
+ + Programming" about 1975. This book is probably still the most complete
+ + source on the topic.  There has been little to no development of the
+ + concept since then.
+ 
+ I don't have this book. ...
It's by Gerald Weinberg, and I'm sure I've seen it in paperback
recently.  Weinberg's latest is Quality Software Management.  Both are
well worth getting.

--
Dan Drake
drake@Autodesk.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: lehman@george.arc.nasa.gov (John Lehman -- GDP)
Subject: It's not an engineering problem.[Was:Re:DoSoftwareEngineersActualy...]
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:54:05 GMT

barryb@bilver.uucp writes:

> failed because the project management put political games, favortism, 
> backstabbing, and deception ahead of logic and reason.  

and:

>     I have seen people so desirous of some PRIDE, satisfaction and fulfill-
> ment, they have spent great quantities of their own time developing something
> the company/project needed badly.  They weren't being allowed to work -- at
> work -- in a way that got the job done with high quality and great personal
> pride and satisfaction, so they did it on their own time.  (Often, this
> development wound up being used in the project and regarded as one of most
> reliable areas of software after testing and field use.)  I have seen these
> same people get written reprimands for doing that, because it intimidated one
> of the leaders.  

I agree with both paragraphs, and in particular had an experience very similar
to the latter.

The problems which are distinctly software problems or engineering problems
are so obviously overwhelmed by general management problems and other broad 
psychological or "people-" problems, that if we really wanted to address
what's wrong in our work lives we would more appropriately be posting in
some "management" or "human-nature.practical-work-around" newsgroup.

As interesting as all that is, in comp.software-eng it would be appropriate
to first separate out the problems which are unique to software, and then 
address those problems.

There would be some satisfaction in developing statistics on the impacts
of the different kinds (management versus software or engineering) of
problems.  To go about this, software engineers could develop a way of
posting their, and "management's", estimates, recommendations, and decisions,
for future reference.  Anyway there needs to be some way to separate out
the people problems from the software problems, or else the software factors
will continue to be overwhelmed by other factors.

It is said that engineering _is_ in large part management; but I think a
more useful point is that good engineering is not political.  If a political
solution leads to success, that's a triumph of skill in politics maybe, but
it doesn't say anything about engineering or software proper.  And what is
politics?  Politics is presentations and statements developed with anything
but objective true facts being the highest value.

I submit that such distinctions need to be made; how to define them is
arguable.

lehman@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: nh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (nicholas.hounsome)
Subject: Re: Memory leaks
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:47:18 GMT

From article <1992Oct16.022435.8593@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by rbanksjr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Richard E. Banks Jr.):
> 
> What is the definition of a memory leak as most people on the net use it?
> Thanks.
> Rich

Memmory which is unreachable from code i.e. which is 'forgotten'
by a program (as you know computers are supposed never to forget however
sometimes they do and when they do they never remember again!)

eg. as a trivial example this function will leak 100 bytes every time it is 
called because p is the only pointer to the malloced memory and it
dissapears forever when the function returned. 

foo()
{
	char *p = malloc(100);		/* get 100 bytes from the heap */
	return;
}

If you are not a C programmer I hope that it is obvious that you can only
have leaks in languages with dynamic memory allocation without garbage 
collection.

If this was called 10000 times you would have wasted 1Meg of swap space
(or worse core). If your program does not run for long you are probably okay
unless you leak realy big lumps (perhaps images)
but if it is intended to run for days or weeks even quite small leaks 
could mean that you would have to restart it now and again or see your system
grind to a halt. From this you see that it is vital for daemons such as print
spoolers, database engines etc to be leak free.

Nick Hounsome
From: rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software Factory (was: Re: Do Software Engineers Actualy Do So Badly?)
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:01:47 GMT
Organization: GID Ltd, Upper Basildon, Reading, UK

In article <9210081531.AA16269@bangalore.esf.de>, Graham
Samuel <graham@esf.de> wrote:

> One of the biggest breakthroughs in the industrialisation of society came when
> people started to put together standardised components.  Manufacturing today is
> completely dependent on standardised components and on the whole system that
> creates and maintains the standards.
> [...]
> People effortlessly combine thousands of predefined pieces to put together
> totally new objects: the lack of effort comes from the fact that they know what
> to expect.
> [...]
> One part of a "Software Factory" therefore is a facility for storing,
> cataloguing and putting together predefined pieces of software (or
> specifications, or User Interfaces or any other product of the software
> production process), and one of the key jobs of researchers in this area is to
> devise and promote standards and mechanisms to make standardised componentry
> possible.

Unfortunately, we in the software business have a problem that
the other engineering disciplines don't. Mechanical
engineering components work because if you tolerance bolts one
way and holes the other, the bolt will always fit through the
hole in spite of the fact that neither dimension can be
guaranteed accurate. Likewise, hardware logic components are
specified such that if you respect the (worst case) setup and
hold times, your system will work regardless of the actual
parameters of the particular components you are using.

Our problem is that we don't have a comparable concept of
tolerances for the interfaces between our components, nor a notion
of `fits the requirement well enough'. Indeed, our theoretical
direction has been towards ever more precise specification,
which will guarantee that only components which fit 100% will
interwork. This is diametrically opposed to the approach in
the traditional engineering disciplines whose happy reuse of
components we are trying to emulate.

In conclusion, I claim that we will need a fundamental
reappraisal of the theoretical basis of our software
engineering activities if we are to make the progress in reuse
of components which everyone agrees is necessary.  It is
arguable on this basis that the Software Factory paradigm is
entirely inappropriate, but I agree with Graham Samuel that
(for the present, at least) it is more useful to focus on the
process aspects of software production.

--
Bob Bishop              +44 734 774017
rb@gid.co.uk        fax +44 734 894254  between 0900 and 1800 UK

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: nh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (nicholas.hounsome)
Subject: Testing GUIs with CAST
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:53:27 GMT

Following my reply concerning X-runner I have had a lot of 
mail asking for the article and the trade paper which
published it.

Computing is a weekly free (To the chosen many) trade paper with job
adverts and a few articles which is distributed in Britain.

I do not know how you can get a copy in the USA but the publisher is

VNU Business Publications
32-34 Broadwick Street
London W1A 2HG
England

tel: (071) 439 4242
fax  (071) 437 3516

The statements referred to come from a Stephen Norman of research firm
Ovum (details unknown) who has apparently evaluated 17 CAST products.

Hope that this helps

Nick Hounsome
AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd.
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.groupware
From: lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
Subject: Re: Need software for brainstorming and problem solving.
Keywords: brainstorming
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 20:56:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.224132.29617@riacs.edu>, lamaster@viking.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster -- RCS) writes:
|> A package that I read about just today in Government Computer News is:
|> 
|> "Teamate" [sp?] from:


I recently talked to someone at MMB Development Corporation, and just
received a brochure.  

According to the brochure, the following is the correct information:

TEAMate
MMB Development Corporation
904 Manhattan Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(213)318-1322  [Area code: I guess this is correct. 
The Area Code has been split, and I'm not sure which one
 is the "correct" one.  It may be the following:
|> (310)318-1322


It has both bulletin board style and "groupware" style interactive 
discussions.



|> Has anyone used this product, and, if so, what do they think of it?

This question still stands.  I have not heard from anyone who has
used this product.  I am particularly interested in the "groupware"
features, since the BBS features seem to overlap USENET news.

|> 
|> It runs on at least SunOS and Sequent; 
:

It runs on Sun, HP-UX, DEC-Ultrix, IBM RS/6000, AT&T 3B2, Sequent,
Data General, SGI, and Tandem.   (What, not the Cray?  :-)

|> It has been used by the Navy as a status-reporting bulletin-board.

The brochure describes a large number of sites where it is in use.


-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-9,     UUCP:      ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center     Internet:  lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000  Or:        lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov 
  Phone:  415/604-1056                     #include <usenet/std_disclaimer.h> 
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Do Software Engineers Actualy Do So Badly?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:19:59 GMT

aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:

>I can't remember the precise details, but it is certainly true that
>the cost of the Channel tunnel (actually a Anglo-French project, not
>merely English) have escalated and the opening date has slipped and
>continues to do so. So does the share price....

>When builing something more novel than a tunnel, things can go very
>wrong. Concorde is supposed to have cost 545% more than originally
>planned. I seem to remember that the Space Shuttle also cost rather
>more than was originally planned. Bridges fall down, buildings
>collapse, refineries blow up...

In fairness, what journalists often forget/ignore is that the costs of
a long-term project are estimated in current-value dollars, pounds or
whatever.  While this obviously does not account for all, or even the
major part, of some of the more spectacular overruns, it can be significant
in a long-term project.  For example, if you have a 10-year project with
expenditure equally spread over its life, 10% inflation will produce a
60% cost "overrun".

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy