I am currently reviewing some designs and code for a company that cannot be named (for commercially confidential reasons).
The designs are done using Matlab, Simulink and the code is generated via Beacon. Analysis of the models/code is done via LDRA (which is a way funky tool).
My experience so far is:
(a) Matlab models lose traceability to the requirements.
(b) You need more hand-coded files than you expect (especially when dealing with hardware, schedulers and communication stacks).
(c) Visual methods of creating code just allow you to sweep misunderstandings of requirements under the carpet, and don't increase reliability.
(d) The code generator can suprise you. While trying to be helpful. It may move sections of code into higher levels, which may be more efficient, but makes module testing far more difficult, and sometimes impossible.
One of the branches (Birmingham) was in the same building as the one I work in. Many (all?) of the people were already owed wages, and guessed something was happening. The offices were looted for laptops etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I am currently reviewing some designs and code for a company that cannot be named (for commercially confidential reasons).
The designs are done using Matlab, Simulink and the code is generated via Beacon. Analysis of the models/code is done via LDRA (which is a way funky tool).
My experience so far is:
(a) Matlab models lose traceability to the requirements.
(b) You need more hand-coded files than you expect (especially when dealing with hardware, schedulers and communication stacks).
(c) Visual methods of creating code just allow you to sweep misunderstandings of requirements under the carpet, and don't increase reliability.
(d) The code generator can suprise you. While trying to be helpful. It may move sections of code into higher levels, which may be more efficient, but makes module testing far more difficult, and sometimes impossible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/29 52194.stm