Blunder Dome Sighting  
privacy 
 
 
 

Hangout for experimental confirmation and demonstration of software, computing, and networking. The exercises don't always work out. The professor is a bumbler and the laboratory assistant is a skanky dufus.



Click for Blog Feed
Blog Feed

Recent Items
 
The Important Software Standards: Quality, Perform...
 
Virtual Classrooms Model Social/Collaborative Soft...
 
Microsoft Cracks Open the Word, Excel, and PowerPo...
 
A Litany of Lists: Creatiing Secure Applications
 
As Complex as Necessary and no More.
 
The Same Old Mistakes, Over and Over Again
 
Sorting the Mail: Agile Databases, Vulnerable Appl...
 
SSH and Known_Hosts Vulnerabilities Threaten Grid
 
Service Research: Focusing on Requirements for Tec...
 
TiddlyWiki: Ohmygosh, I'm in Love.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
  

Locations of visitors to this site
visits to Orcmid's Lair pages

The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave
 
Millennia Antica: The Kiln Sitter's Diary
 
nfoWorks: Pursuing Harmony
 
Numbering Peano
 
Orcmid's Lair
 
Orcmid's Live Hideout
 
Prof. von Clueless in the Blunder Dome
 
Spanner Wingnut's Muddleware Lab (experimental)

nfoCentrale Associated Sites
 
DMA: The Document Management Alliance
 
DMware: Document Management Interoperability Exchange
 
Millennia Antica Pottery
 
The Miser Project
 
nfoCentrale: the Anchor Site
 
nfoWare: Information Processing Technology
 
nfoWorks: Tools for Document Interoperability
 
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
 
ODMA Interoperability Exchange
 
Orcmid's Lair
 
TROST: Open-System Trustworthiness

2005-06-15

 

Automated Authentication of Programming Standards?

CM News Service: Automatic Source Code Review is Development Tools’ Next Frontier.  NIST is developing SAMATE (you think it’s say-mate, or sam-awty, or same-awty or …), Software Assurance Metrics and Tool Evaluation.  The idea is to introduce tools into the software development lifecycle for “assessment, auditing, and acceptance.”

This raises an interesting issue in the development of trustworthiness: do we accept the assessment of an automated tool as an attestation, or do we want the attestation of the software engineer that supervised and reviewed the results of using the tool?

Another factor is whether or not these tools will be found insanely pedanntic in their issuing of warnings and raising of alarms about deviations.  It would seem that some sort of screening by a skilled developer, and a record of what the allowed deviations are, has to be part of the deal.  I’m sure there are those who see a bureaucratic nightmare in all of this.  It will be interesting to see what the practical trade-offs become.

Peter Coffee’s 2005 June 6 eWeek article leads out with the cautionary charge, “Coding standards should leave room for innovation.”  Peter links to Paul Black’s SAMATE page, currently in a provisional state and already providing a nice compilation of tools and perspectives.  As an examples of the kinds of coding standards, Coffee mentions the High Integrity C++ Coding Standards Manual, a valuable find.

This column is apparently a companion to the same-day article I discussed as The Important Software Standards: Quality, Performance, and Diligence.  Taking the two together provides more context on what standards mean—and how they are valuable—in this context.

I also think this all figures in how desirable it is to find a way to evolve trustworthiness as an ongoing approach to delivering and supporting software in a dependable way.

 
Construction Structure (Hard Hat Area) You are navigating Orcmid's Lair.

template created 2004-06-17-20:01 -0700 (pdt) by orcmid
$$Author: Orcmid $
$$Date: 10-04-30 22:33 $
$$Revision: 21 $