Cleanroom software engineering
by Stacy J. Prowell, Carmen J. Trammell, Richard C. Linger, Jesse H. Poore · first published 1999
8mentions
2recommended by
4HN commenters
2010–2024first – last mentioned
50% recommend50% neutral
Affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This stuff is over my head, and I might be stating the obvious to you, or this might be useless for Haskell, but because you didn't mention it explicitly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom_Software_Engineering http://www.amazon.com/Cleanroom-Software-Engineering-Technol...
on “Ask HN: How can I learn how to formally verify Haskell programs?” ↗…C to take advantage of its verification tooling. They're getting hit with these vulnerabilities because they using a harder-to-analyze language possibly with coding strategy that adds difficulty. See Cleanroom Software Engineering or Praxis's Correct-by-Construction for examples of low-defect, development strategy.
on “The State of Software Security in 2019” ↗…testing tools on it overnight, too, so you get their benefits without just staring at the screen. https://github.com/SoftSec-KAIST/Eclipser Another lightweight-ish, formal method you might like was Cleanroom Software Engineering. It was one of first to make writing software more like engineering it. Stavely's introduction is good. His book was, too, with the chapter on semi-formal verification being easier to use and high ROI…
on “Google Is Uncovering Hundreds of Race Conditions Within the Linux Kernel” ↗…https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/013881483X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b... https://archive.org/details/systemdesignfrom00mart/page/n3/m... Now, if you want a practical method, the best were Design by Contract, Cleanroom Software Engineering, and Praxis' Correct by Construction. Cleanroom and CbyC hit very, low, defect rates. DbyC was highly pragmatic in balancing developer productivity, ease of adoption, and correctness. I think they'd all…
on “How fuzz testing was invented (2008)” ↗…people, esp if it's formal verification or spotting unknowns. We can easily get 90% of the way there, though, without the hard stuff just by people giving a shit and doing stuff like you said. Of course, Cleanroom Software Engineering that does a lot of what you said without as much formal stuff as Praxis's method. Thing you should remember in these conversations is to point out to other party that what you recommend and what these…
on “Why does software development take so long?” ↗…automatically said that it wasn't realistic to expect similar quality from "normal software". That is the mindset that I think needs to change in our industry. For example, every study I've ever read about Cleanroom Software Engineering has shown that its up-front development costs (both time and money) are typically within a factor of 2 or 3 of a "normal" software development process (often much closer) and while it doesn't completely…
on “Understanding the corporate impact (of upgrading Firefox)” ↗…automatically said that it wasn't realistic to expect similar quality from "normal software". That is the mindset that I think needs to change in our industry. For example, every study I've ever read about Cleanroom Software Engineering has shown that its up-front development costs (both time and money) are typically within a factor of 2 or 3 of a "normal" software development process (often much closer) and while it doesn't completely…
on “Understanding the corporate impact (of upgrading Firefox)” ↗…confusing heavyweight processes generally with my example of Cleanroom in particular. There are plenty of studies that show developers do enjoy working within that process; try a Google Scholar search for Cleanroom Software Engineering and read a few of the papers. Likewise, you also seem to be assuming that Cleanroom is heavy in the sense of being all about writing specs and management overhead, which suggests to me that you've never…
on “Understanding the corporate impact (of upgrading Firefox)” ↗