How Rapid Application Development Helps the US Navy

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2015-09-30 09:42, Kay C Lan wrote:
>> Although one thing that slightly annoyed me is that it could give many
>> people
>> the impression that LiveCode is ONLY fit for rapid prototyping, and 
>> that,
>> having prototyped
>> something the "real deal" has to be constructed in something else.

I must confess that there is potentially that take away from the 
article.

However, another way to look at it is - if the US Navy use it for rapid 
prototyping of substantial software systems then LiveCode must be quite 
capable.

> OK you're the English expert and I basically failed it, but I don't 
> know
> how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I read one paragraph 
> that
> said GDIT 'normally' used LC as a RAD tool but then noted that it had
> recently made several one-off LC standalone apps. The rest of the 
> article
> went on the basically describe one of these LC apps - MSAT and included 
> the
> shocker that the whole thing was constructed "without a single line of 
> code
> written by a software engineer".

I don't think this is too uncommon - people have often picked up 
LiveCode (and its predecessors) to prototype something and then realized 
they've actually built the app.

> The article says to me; If you need a mission critical life vs death 
> piece
> of battle proof software and you need it fast, then prototype it in LC 
> and
> build it something else. But, if you only need to simulate the overall
> dynamics of a massive naval battle anywhere around the globe, in real 
> time,
> quicktime, or replay time, then LC can do that for you, no problem.

I think Kay makes an extremely good point about something that isn't 
perhaps entirely obvious from the article.

There are many endeavours where certain practices, procedures and 
processes are mandated - you can only use tools in this instance which 
have got the relevant certifications. It is usually on the shoulders of 
said tool provider to ensure such certifications are met and maintained.

Defence related projects are be full of these. For example, for Apple to 
get the iPhone used in certain US governmental situations they have to 
get it 'FIPS certified'. This is long, lengthy and expensive process 
that ensures that all security features comply to very strict and high 
standards.

So, yes, in this instance I suspect LiveCode could not be used to 
produce the final system because it was not compliant to the various 
things that were mandated as part of the systems specification. However, 
by prototyping in LiveCode first they mananged to ensure they had the 
design of it right before the humungously expensive process of getting 
it implemented to the required standards - I think this is very positive 
outcome.

Of course, it would be nice if we could be used in all such situations 
from end to end; however, we have to pick our battles at the end of the 
day and I'm not sure we are quite big enough yet to enter certain 
spheres...

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps