Peter, >I'm not convinced that formal analysis is yet sufficiently powerful, >given the range of variables to be addressed. I would suggest that >certain types of software, particularly that in narrowly defined domains >(e.g. mathematical modelling) may be more suitable for such
I am happy to solve what appears to be a small problem at the moment. In fact it is a large problem and getting worse. A typical development platform can have over 20,000 identifiers made visible by libraries of one sort or another. A typical developer could easily have to use 500 different external library identifier (functions, macros, structures, etc) during a years development. The following year yet more could be added to those required, and some never used again. There is a constant turnover and developers are on a never ending learning cycle. If I am given the job of writing the library for, say, the widget and tegdiw interface I might be tempted to create a third module that contained functionality common to both. Now which identifiers go in the widget module, which in tegdiw and which in common? Since these modules will be used by thousands of developers I want to make the interface intuitive (whatever that might be) and put the function foo in the module where developers expect to find it. I want to organise my modules so that category membership is easy to learn. Developers will like my library (because it is easy to use), they recommend it to their friends, who buy a copy and recommend it to their friends, ... and I get to buy a Greek island. >is not just a problem of finding a good classification scheme; it takes >time to classify software, to maintain a software library, to understand >the classification scheme in sufficient detail to retrieve software >effectively. Changing a classification scheme once lots of people have coded its dependencies into their program is very expensive. >I agree with the aims; however I do not believe they can be achieved >easily. I don't know Estes' work; but from what you are saying, the >classification is being performed against the relatively small number of >abstraction possibilities available with shapes. The small number is not really an issue. The problems start to occur if they are not independent of each other, and the messy task of assigning a similarity measure to each attribute. >My point about the relationship between classification schemes and >abstraction earlier was that the massive amount of information contained >within a given piece of software invites multiple classification >schemes. Software that already exists is a different problem. It exists, rewriting would be very expensive and people are have no sensible choice but to go with what they are given. derek -- Derek M Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk - Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
