Comments on: KBE System Definition http://www.agileengineeringdesign.com/2009/01/kbe-system-definition/ A weblog on computational engineering design and agile software development Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:34:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: a.s.mitchell http://www.agileengineeringdesign.com/2009/01/kbe-system-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-235 a.s.mitchell Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:51:42 +0000 http://www.agileengineeringdesign.com/?p=78#comment-235 I don't agree with Dave Coppers paper. What sort of technology you choose to develop your system is dependent on the skills of the developer and user base. The focus on functional languages and especially Lisp would rule out all but a few developers and most of your users. Anyone that says dynamically typed languages are good is crazy. Basic typing errors that can be caught at compile time now become runtime errors resulting in less robust code. The aerospace industry (boeing ) is used as example of KBE success. In reality it is an example on how to get stuck with old technology and an expensive legacy system that only a few developers can maintain. It has also meant that they haven’t been able to leverage the latest technology available in the market place. There is a definite start and finish to a KBE model as you are trying to capture the optimum workflow. You can’t do an analysis before there are loads, geometry etc. are defined. I do agree with the point that new web-based technologies and OS independence are the way to go. However, this seems in contradiction with his previous requirement of the system having to last upto 50 years. Web-based technologies currently are lucky to have a life span of 5 years. Successful KBE systems in industry act as the glue around other proprietary systems. Not the system on which everything else sits. I don’t agree with Dave Coppers paper. What sort of technology you choose to develop your system is dependent on the skills of the developer and user base.

The focus on functional languages and especially Lisp would rule out all but a few developers and most of your users.

Anyone that says dynamically typed languages are good is crazy. Basic typing errors that can be caught at compile time now become runtime errors resulting in less robust code.

The aerospace industry (boeing ) is used as example of KBE success. In reality it is an example on how to get stuck with old technology and an expensive legacy system that only a few developers can maintain. It has also meant that they haven’t been able to leverage the latest technology available in the market place.

There is a definite start and finish to a KBE model as you are trying to capture the optimum workflow. You can’t do an analysis before there are loads, geometry etc. are defined.

I do agree with the point that new web-based technologies and OS independence are the way to go. However, this seems in contradiction with his previous requirement of the system having to last upto 50 years. Web-based technologies currently are lucky to have a life span of 5 years.

Successful KBE systems in industry act as the glue around other proprietary systems. Not the system on which everything else sits.

]]>