[SystemSafety] C for OSs

[Chris Hills]

Here is Felix Redmil's "evolutionary"  system. He did it before Agile was used in development.
On this page is a video  interview with him about the method . 
http://www.safetycritical.info/library/NFR/
Direct link for the book is
http://www.safetycritical.info/library/NFR/NFRdata/softwareprojectsRedmill.pdf

I also have a 6Mb pack of reference material for the book

Chris 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-
> bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Peter Bernard Ladkin
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:20 AM
> To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
> 
> 
> 
> On 2019-10-14 10:36 , Grazebrook, Alvery AN wrote:
> > .... The agile manifesto has its place.
> 
> Well, yes, in the following sense. Your description describes the advantages of
> incremental development and advancemanship, two key processes described
> by Barry Boehm in SEE in 1981, which came to be called the Spiral Model.
> 
> The original advantage of the "Agile" approach was the four-eyes approach to
> coding. The idea was that there were fewer chances to make mistakes (this was
> also known from the High-Reliability Organisations work of the sociologist of
> technology Todd LaPorte and colleagues). That is how Alexander Reinefeld and
> I wrote our interval-constraint-solving code in 1991-3, which produced the
> practical algorithms which lasted for a decade and a half (at least), but we
> didn't know it had a name. It worked very well for us.
> 
> Then management theorists turned it into a whole-organisation body sock.
> Programmers who weren't born when it started apparently didn't realise most
> of it was lifted from existing techniques such as Spiral (most programmers do
> not seem to be familiar with any history of software engineering. It is
> astonishing how many supposed experts in dependable computing aren't
> familiar with Ken Thompson's perfect Trojan, for example).
> 
> The problem with both it and Spiral is that it violates the condition that allowed
> Waterfall to be so helpful. Waterfall is a way of organising the documentation
> rationally, as pointed out by Parnas, and indeed Royce in the original paper.
> What you need to substantiate a critical system is a documentation stack that
> shows (a) the derivation of functional requirements, and (b) the system
> development by formal refinement from functional requirements. That doesn't
> arise from anywhere in the "agile" process descriptions. It has to be engineered
> from scratch. And if you are going to have to engineer that from scratch in any
> event, you might as well use it to help guide your forward development in the
> first place. Which is what happens in the better SW shops, as far as I can tell.
> 
> PBL
> 
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany MoreInCommon Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de
> 
> 
> 
> 



This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
For more info visit www.bullguard.com