Re: gEDA-user: Resistor values…

[Bob Paddock <bob.paddock@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> 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.pdfâ;

"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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user