[SystemSafety] C for OSs

[jean-louis Boulanger]

Steve a big thank for tour reply
In rail industry i have the same kind of discussion and i try to explain
the same
We need to be some professional sw engeenier

Le lun. 14 oct. 2019 à 15:55, Steve Tockey <steve.tockey at construx.com> a
écrit :

>
> Alvery Grazbrook wrote:
>
> “*I do feel there is a certain amount of wilful misinterpretation going
> on here. The agile manifesto has its place.*”
>
> IMHO, there are two very distinct things going on here. And they need to
> be separated.
>
> The first is Agile Development as a process for developing and maintaining
> software. I have absolutely no problem with that per se. There are times
> when Agile is appropriate. I can and have used it myself. But just the same
> (and vitally important), there are times when it is NOT appropriate. A true
> professional can and should know that. Further, a true professional can and
> should know when to apply Agile vs. some other process vs. some
> combination/mix of processes.
>
> The second thing is the “Agile Manifesto”. My personal take is that it is
> a load of touchy-feely, unprofessional crap. As I tried to illustrate
> with the Aeronautical Engineer / Civil Engineer rephrasing example, if
> people generally recognized as professional engineers pulled that kind of
> stunt they should be laughed at. So why is it held up as some kind of
> lofty ideal in software? To me the manifesto only further emphasizes how much
> of an "industry of highly paid amateurs" we continue to be.
>
>
> “*The project is going through a discovery process, by implementing a
> partial solution . . .*”
>
> Is implementing a partial solution necessarily the ONLY POSSIBLE way to
> discover??? Of course not. Other ways exist—ways that are far quicker and
> cheaper than by writing code. But those more efficient, more effective ways
> are completely ignored by an industry that has fallen victim to the belief,
> “At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in running code”. No!
> “At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is delivering value”.
> There are a lot of non-code ways that we can deliver value.
>
>
> “*If you are trying to chase something hard to define like “a good
> customer experience”, this approach can be valuable*”
>
> Agreed, and that is where Agile shines. But that’s not the dominant case.
> In my experience, the majority of what this industry calls “requirements
> change” isn’t that at all. It’s requirements clarification. A former boss
> of mine once said, “Requirements aren’t created, they surface”. The real
> requirements have been there all along, the developers just did a really
> horrible job of surfacing them. Writing code is a really expensive and ine
> ffective way to elicit most requirements.
>
> Agile is held up as "the only effective solution to the requirements
> problem". It’s not. It is a project management structure. Nothing more and
> nothing less.
>
> How many times has it been claimed by the Agile community: “Waterfall
> doesn’t work”? Seriously? It’s never worked? Ever? Hmmm, I have to wonder,
> then, how I could possibly have been on so many successful waterfall projects
> over the years?
>
> Those people need to be honest with themselves and simply rephrase it as, “
> We were unable to make waterfall work in our shop”. Those are two very
> different statements: “X doesn’t work” and “We were unable to make X work
> in our shop”. It’s trivial to blame something other than yourself for
> your own shortcomings. It’s harder, but much more mature, to accept the
>  blame.
>
> Most use of Agile today is as a project management process band-aid
> trying to solve a requirements problem. When are we, this industry, finally
> going to grow up, be adults, admit that it really is a requirements problem
> and then fix it with a requirements solution?
>
>
> Sigh . . .
>
> — steve
>
>
>
>
> From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> on behalf of "Grazebrook, Alvery AN" <alvery.grazebrook at airbus.com>
> Date: Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:36 AM
> To: "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de" <
> systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
>
> I do feel there is a certain amount of wilful misinterpretation going on
> here. The agile manifesto has its place. Its place is where the application
> is non-critical and human-focussed. The classic problem here is that the
> users have expressed some need, but not all the other relationships and
> business processes connected to that need. The project is going through a
> discovery process, by implementing a partial solution the team (developers
> and customers) the developers and customers together discover ways to
> improve the process through the use of computer automation. The
> intermediate deliverables help to identify the unexplored relationships
> that exist in the process. If you are trying to chase something had to
> define like “a good customer experience”, this approach can be valuable
>
>
>
> Even for safety-related equipment control applications, this kind of
> process has some potential during the R&T stages. Clearly, when working
> towards the final product, a good deal more discipline is required.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>             Alvery
>
>
>
> ** Opinions expressed here are my own, not necessarily those of my
> employer. **
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* systemsafety [
> mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>] *On Behalf Of *Martyn
> Thomas
> *Sent:* 11 October 2019 14:25
> *To:* systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
>
>
>
> There must be a line missing from the agile manifesto: "gettong to market
> over getting it right"
>
> Martyn
>
> On 11/10/2019 13:41, Andrew Banks wrote:
>
> Since you’ve raised that:
>
>
>
>                 *Customer collaboration* over contract negotiation
>
>
>
> Good luck with that, in the real world J
>
>
>
> Ultimately, someone has to pay…
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* systemsafety [
> mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>] *On Behalf Of *Chris
> Hills
> *Sent:* 03 October 2019 17:52
> *To:* 'SPRIGGS, John J'; 'Steve Tockey'; 'Olwen Morgan';
> systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> You are an antediluvian  I refer you to the Agile Manifesto
> https://agilemanifesto.org/
>
> *Individuals and interactions* over processes and tools
> *Working software* over comprehensive documentation
> *Customer collaboration* over contract negotiation
> *Responding to change* over following a plan
>
> That is, while there is value in the items on
> the right, we value the items on the left more.
>
> Now you are re-educated and can see the light!
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> J
>
>
> Regards
>
>    Chris
>
>
>
> Phaedrus Systems Ltd
>
> FREEphone 0808 1800 358    International +44 1827 259 546
> Vat GB860621831  Co Reg #04120771
> Http://www.phaedsys.com <http://www.phaedsys.com/>  chills at phaedsys.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* SPRIGGS, John J [mailto:John.SPRIGGS at nats.co.uk
> <John.SPRIGGS at nats.co.uk>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:23 AM
> *To:* safetyyork at phaedsys.com; 'Steve Tockey'; 'Olwen Morgan';
> systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> *Subject:* RE: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
>
>
>
> My favourite comment, from several years ago, when I pointed out some
> errors in a document, I was told “This is an agile project, we do not have
> time to change anything”
>
>
>
> I also despair.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>*On Behalf Of *Chris
> Hills
> *Sent:* 03 October 2019 09:55
> *To:* 'Steve Tockey' <steve.tockey at construx.com>
> <steve.tockey at construx.com>; 'Olwen Morgan' <olwen at phaedsys.com>
> <olwen at phaedsys.com>; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
> That’s the problem with dinosaurs like you wanting: Set theory,
> Requirements , Design, Code quality, Peer review, Development processes,
> Computer architecture and Engineering economics.....
>
> We use Agile so we don't need: Set theory, Requirements , Design,
> Development processes.
> We use lots of Open Source so it is all Peer Reviewed before we get it.
> We use continuous integration to get Code quality, when it compiles with
> no errors it's OK because our compiler has built in error checking.
>
> Engineering economics has nothing to do with coding/software! That is
> management ******** and techies don't need to know it......
>
> I have had all those comments said to me one way or another, more than
> once, in the last 1-2 years by people developing critical systems. So far
> mission and company critical. Some with consumer/commercial security
> implications but none so far on serious safety critical systems. So
> people/companies might lose money but not their lives
>
> That includes being told I am "a dinosaur" because: "Everyone now uses
> dev-ops with scrum for critical systems development these days.... "
>
> I despair.
>
> Seriously there does seem to be a huge disconnect between a lot of people
> "doing software" especially IoT and the [safety/security] critical systems
> people. I daily come across developers who have never heard of most of the
> things discussed in this group. How do we make the re-connect?
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> Phaedrus Systems Ltd
> FREEphone 0808 1800 358 International +44 1827 259 546
> Vat GB860621831 Co Reg #04120771
> Http://www.phaedsys.com chills at phaedsys.com
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Tockey [mailto:steve.tockey at construx.com
> <steve.tockey at construx.com>]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:09 PM
> > To: safetyyork at phaedsys.com; 'Olwen Morgan';
> > systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> > Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
> >
> >
> > Chris Hills wrote:
> >
> > “What has made it far worse is "coding" being pushed as a skill, at least
> > in the UK.”
> >
> >
> > Same here in the US, and from my travels I can say it's the same all the
> > way around the world. For example, this article from just last week:
> >
> > https://mashable.com/shopping/sept-18-computer-science-master-class/
> >
> >
> > Quote from the article:
> >
> > “Learn the ropes of computer science with this master class bundle — just
> > $39 for full access to tons of courses that'll make you a pro in no
> time.”
> >
> > “Not only are jobs aplenty in the computer science field, but they also
> > come with a pretty paycheck – over $91K a year, on average.”
> >
> > “. . . this Computer Science Master Class Bundle will give you a complete
> > computer science education without the massive loans.”
> >
> >
> > Course content is said to include:
> >
> > * C#, JavaScript, Java, Scala, Google Go, Python 3, PHP MySQL
> > * The Arduino IoT cloud platform
> > * Software testing technologies: Sikuli, Selenium, Junit
> > * Building apps with Alexa
> > * Technical fundamentals and interview tips
> >
> >
> >
> > The Technical Fundamentals course had a hint of promise, but looking at
> > the course outline shows otherwise:
> >
> > * Introduction
> > * Pointer and Arrays
> > * Strings are just pointers at heart
> > * Linked lists can be fun!
> > * Bit Manipulation
> > * General programming problems - practice makes perfect
> > * Big-O Notation, Sorting And Searching Algorithms
> > * Recursion and the recursive sense
> > * Stacks And Queues
> > * Binary Trees
> > * Binary Search Trees
> > * Binary Tree Problems
> >
> >
> > Discrete math? No
> >
> > Set theory? No
> > Requirements? No
> > Design? No
> > Code quality? No
> > Peer review? No
> > Development processes? No
> > Computer architecture? No
> > Engineering economics? No
> >
> > The list of critical but missing content goes on and on.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Hills finished with, “It’s depressing.”
> >
> > Yes. Without a doubt. . .
> >
> >
> > — steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Hills <safetyyork at phaedsys.com>
> > Organization: Phaedrus Systems
> > Reply-To: "safetyyork at phaedsys.com" <safetyyork at phaedsys.com>
> > Date: Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:12 AM
> > To: Steve Tockey <Steve.Tockey at construx.com>, 'Olwen Morgan'
> > <olwen at phaedsys.com>, "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
> > <systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> > Subject: RE: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
> >
> >
> > The big problem is people start writing code long before the
> > specification, let alone the design is finished.
> > Hence the rise in Agile methods as they give the illusion of progress. Ie
> > people are writing code so much faster than with waterfall....
> > Waterfall or V model require a discipline that is also lacking in
> software
> > development these days.
> >
> > What has made it far worse is "coding" being pushed as a skill, at least
> > in the UK.
> > We have gone from Software Engineering to Programming to Coding.
> > What is pushed in "coding" is that you start developing an app by coding,
> > not by doing a detailed (any?) design.
> > Trial and error is pushed as a solution.
> >
> > So doing an "app" that is "something like that" will require fuzzy logic
> > and imaginary numbers (and I don't mean i notation). To do any form of
> > mathematical or formal methods on most project is a non-starter. Even
> > without the reality that maths isn't part of many software degrees so you
> > probably won't have the skills in any team to do it..
> >
> > What is worse is much of the IoT and Infotainment is written to low
> > standards but is being bolted on to critical systems. As we get an
> > increasingly connected world containing more and more software the
> quality
> > of the software is plummeting.
> >
> > It’s depressing.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> >
> > Phaedrus Systems Ltd
> > FREEphone 0808 1800 358 International +44 1827 259 546
> > Vat GB860621831 Co Reg #04120771
> > Http://www.phaedsys.com chills at phaedsys.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni
> <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni>-
> > > bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Steve Tockey
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 8:29 PM
> > > To: Olwen Morgan; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> > > Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
> > >
> > >
> > > Olwen wrote: ³I remember reading a report of a talk given by Tony Hoare
> > >in
> > > which he counselled solving computing problems in mathematics and only
> > > then translating the mathematics into program code. I thought that was
> > > such blindingly self-evident good practice that I wondered why he saw
> fit
> > > to say it explicitly.²
> > >
> > > I saw a similar quote but haven¹t been able to track down the source:
> > >
> > > ³Š change the nature of programming from a private, puzzle solving
> > > activity to a public, mathematics based activity of translating
> > > specifications into programs Š that can be expected to both run and do
> > >the
> > > right thing with little or no debugging²
> > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like it could be from Tony Hoare.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I am constantly amazed by how many people resist such an
> > >obviously
> > > good idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > ‹ steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Olwen Morgan <olwen at phaedsys.com>
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:47 PM
> > > To: Steve Tockey <Steve.Tockey at construx.com>,
> > > "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
> > > <systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> > > Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] C for OSs
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16/09/2019 23:15, Steve Tockey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All true engineers need to have a solid foundation in:
> > > >
> > > > *) relevant Scientific & Mathematical Theory
> > > > *) useful and relevant Practice
> > > > *) Engineering Economy
> > > >
> > > > Take, for example, a Chemical Engineer. The scientific and
> > > > mathematical theory is Chemistry, Physics, and to some extent Quantum
> > > > Mechanics. The relevant practice are things like waste heat removal
> > > > strategies, pressure vessels, catalysts, etc. The theory and practice
> > > > combine to help the true engineer propose a set of theoretically
> > > > viable, potential solutions to a real-world problem. Engineering
> > > > economy comes in to guide the true engineer in identifying the most
> > > > cost-effective one of those theoretically viable, potential
> solutions.
> > > > As a consultant friend of mine once said (slightly paraphrased), ³The
> > > > Theory and the Practice sets Œem up, Economics knocks Œem down².
> > >
> > > Of course, I go along with this. But I learned to teach myself long
> > > before there was anything formally titled a body of knowledge. For
> > > example, I left school knowing how to do critical path analysis, so the
> > > technical aspects of project management were, for me, a matter of
> > > applying something that I already understood. It was the same with
> > > software testing. I taught myself graph theory in my mid-twenties and
> > > had no problem understanding graph-based test metrics when I later
> > > encountered them.
> > >
> > > Indeed, in the late seventies, when I was around 25, I remember reading
> > > a report of a talk given by Tony Hoare in which he counselled solving
> > > computing problems in mathematics and only then translating the
> > > mathematics into program code. I thought that was such blindingly
> > > self-evident good practice that I wondered why he saw fit to say it
> > > explicitly. And it has often irritated me to find that one needed to do
> > > an approved course in something to be seen as competent in things that
> I
> > > regarded as obvious.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, having had the benefit of a privileged public-school
> > > education (which was truly exceptional in mathematics), I found myself
> > > pretty intellectually self-reliant as soon as I started working in the
> > > computing industry. So, I'll admit it, I have to confess to blank
> > > incomprehension of people who have never felt themselves to be in that
> > > position.
> > >
> > >
> > > Olwen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > The System Safety Mailing List
> > > systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> > > Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-
> > > bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
> >
> >
> > This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
> > For more info visit www.bullguard.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
> This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
> For more info visit www.bullguard.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at
> Email Information.Solutions at nats.co.uk immediately. You should not copy
> or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their
> contents to any other person.
>
> NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them
> recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system.
>
> Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility
> for viruses or any losses caused as a result of viruses and it is your
> responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.
>
> NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services)
> Ltd (company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) or NATS
> Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218).
> All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000
> Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/4000+Parkway,+Whiteley,+Fareham,+Hampshire,+PO15+7FL?entry=gmail&source=g>
> .
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.
>
> For more info visit www.bullguard.com
> <http://www.bullguard.com/tracking.aspx?affiliate=bullguard&buyaffiliate=smtp&url=/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The System Safety Mailing List
>
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
>
> Manage your subscription: https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
>
> This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information.  If you have received them in error you must not use, copy or
> disclose their content to any person.  Please notify the sender immediately
> and then delete this email from your system.  This e-mail has been scanned
> for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their
> own security measures. Airbus Operations Limited is not liable for any loss
> or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.
>
> Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales,
> registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, Aerospace
> Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety

-- 
Mr Jean-louis Boulanger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20191014/91fb3d93/attachment-0001.html>