>> Flexibility and specific applicability are not mutually exclusive, and for >> the very reasons you are citing here. > > True, but what makes this possible? It's *avoiding* specificity in the > foundations.
I find that statement odd. If the foundation is not well specified then it is not a foundation at all, it is jello. I'm curious about how exacting the specifications are for your space projects? Here is an interesting document on specifying software from NASA: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/871913.pdf "The focus of this document is on analysis, development, and assurance of safety-critical software, including firmware (e.g. software residing in non-volatile memory, such as ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, or flash memory) and programmable logic. This document also discusses issues with contractor-developed software. It provides guidance on how to address creation and assurance of safety-critical software within the overall software development, management, risk management, and assurance activities." While gEDA and friends might not be considered 'safety-critical' by many, there is no reason good software disciplines should not be used, including good detailed specifications at all levels. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
