Thanks Mucho! :) Astronomy FTW! ------------------------ Chris Mattmann [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Barkstrom <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier >Finally got around to the Sept. issue of IEEE Computer. >Noticed your editing work. Nice job. > >Bruce B. > >On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Bruce, this is great. >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: [email protected] >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Barkstrom <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: A Note on Software Design to Make Maintenance Easier >> >> >I was working through some intricate programming yesterday and >> >observed that I should put in some input consistency checking >> >before turning a workflow over to the production >> >system. My guess is that in complex workflows, that kind of >> >automated checking would cut down on errors enough to be very >> >worthwhile. >> > >> >Don't know how much of the OODT software does that kind of >> >checking, but it might be interesting to see if it would help. >> >Even better would be documentation of cases where it did. >> > >> >This kind of work is like the help my Ada compiler provides >> >in detecting errors such as type inconsistencies and violations >> >of interface consistency. That kind of error checking really improves >> >my coding productivity. I've even gotten in the habit of building >> >exception handling right into my standard code construction and >> >testing work. Each module (i.e. subroutine) returns a Boolean >> >variable labelled 'OK' and a string called 'Err_Msg'. That makes it >> >easy to figure out where things have gone wrong, including diagnostic >> >notes on values of key parameters (sort of like "Err detected when x = >>0 >> >in routine `check input'. It seems like a bother sometimes during code >> >writing, but it saves a lot of time after development moves on and some >> >new error crops up in the previous code after you've forgotten the >> >details. >> > >> >Bruce B. >> >>
