Am 20.08.2011 11:49, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Lest anyone doubt this, at uni we learned about something called
> Computer Aided Software Engineering ("CASE"). We used a tool called
> Rational Rose. You draw various class diagrams, flowcharts, etc., and
> then press a button, and it spits out C++ source code. If your diagrams
> are detailed enough, the generated code actually compiles and runs, and
> *is* "the finished system".

Similarly, Matlab/Simulink allows you to write your program by visually 
"wiring" kind of "mathematic gates" (arithmetic ops, logical ops, 
integrators, differentiators, level triggers, signal generators, signal 
filters and what-have-you) and then have that translated to C and 
ultimately machine code. Seen that recently hands-on in production use, 
for the electronic controller of a car transmission.

> All without you ever writing a single line of code yourself. Or even
> knowing *how* to program C++.
>
> So yes, if your design is detailed enough, the translation is (or can be
> made) automatic.

... provided you trust the code generator.

Some portions of the car transmission software I mentioned were actually 
still written directly in C; those were responsible for fail-safe 
functions, so that even a bugs in the code generator couldn't possibly 
cause an accident. (I'm not sure how they verified the C compilation 
process though.)

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2011 11:24 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.08.2011 11:49, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>> Lest anyone doubt this, at uni we learned about something called
>> Computer Aided Software Engineering ("CASE"). We used a tool called
>> Rational Rose. You draw various class diagrams, flowcharts, etc., and
>> then press a button, and it spits out C++ source code. If your diagrams
>> are detailed enough, the generated code actually compiles and runs, and
>> *is* "the finished system".
>
> Similarly, Matlab/Simulink allows you to write your program by visually
> "wiring" kind of "mathematic gates" (arithmetic ops, logical ops,
> integrators, differentiators, level triggers, signal generators, signal
> filters and what-have-you) and then have that translated to C and
> ultimately machine code. Seen that recently hands-on in production use,
> for the electronic controller of a car transmission.

Reaktor does the some thing with DSP. I can pick up a sawtooth 
oscilator, a 2-poly LP filter, an ADSR envolope generator, hook them 
together, and I've got a synthesizer. Not impressed? How about I hook 
together a couple of 1-sample delay units, some (+) and (*) nodes, and 
implement my 2-pole filter from first principles?

Other "module synthesizers" let you connect pre-built filters and so 
forth together. Reaktor lets you design new ones from scratch, down to 
the level of individual DSP algorithms. (On the other hand, it stupidly 
lacks any kind of true subroutine capability, nor any looping constructs...)

>> All without you ever writing a single line of code yourself. Or even
>> knowing *how* to program C++.
>>
>> So yes, if your design is detailed enough, the translation is (or can be
>> made) automatic.
>
> ... provided you trust the code generator.

And the compiler. And the processor implementation. And, hell, the 
entire hardware system you're going to run it on. And, if you want to be 
picky about it, assuming your trust mankind's understandig of the laws 
of physics...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 8/20/2011 3:24, clipka wrote:
> Similarly, Matlab/Simulink allows you to write your program by visually
> "wiring" kind of "mathematic gates"

Or VHDL, that lets you write the math for your hardware and have it generate 
the hardware for you.

> accident. (I'm not sure how they verified the C compilation process though.)

At JPL, they disassemble the machine code and make sure it does what they 
think the C said it does.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 19-8-2011 15:21, Mike the Elder wrote:

> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
> decisions.

This is mainly based on the idea that management is a skill in itself. A 
manager of a workshop does not need to know anything about designing or 
making things. Likewise, a manager of a hospital does not need to know 
anything about medicine or patient care. Knowing management skills is 
enough. Actually knowing what the people are doing will make it 
impossible to judge objectively who is necessary and who can be fired.

Therefore the suggestion that you should be able to judge an IT contract 
is an insult to management. Worse, people might use that to question the 
level of salaries paid.

Post a reply to this message