[SystemSafety] The Rush - we and the dead

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2016-12-22 03:02 , Matthew Squair wrote:
> You do realize that the waterfall SDLC actually doesn't work. I'm fact the original paper pointed
> out it's various inadequacies quite well. :)

http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf

Dave Parnas used to observe (probably still does) that the Waterfall Model is primarily a way to
organise your documentation for system assurance purposes
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~taylor/classes/121/IEEE86_Parnas_Clement.pdf . Those government institutions
I have encountered who require software be developed according to Waterfall are entirely satisfied
if the delivered documentation exhibits that structure. And why not? In the last analysis, it's just
a refinement model. If you are going to argue that your object code satisfies the functional
requirements, you have to use refinement techniques, because it's the only thing in town
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/pubs.html#abadi-existence . BTW, Parnas
pointed that out too https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf

I met Win Royce back in the 1980's just once, when he visited the research institute where I was
working http://www.kestrel.edu

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20161222/a70437c5/attachment.pgp>