Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (2437)	2/17/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: angel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3391

MAJOR BLUNDER!!!! CSGI FULLY AUTOMATED TOOLSET MAKES AN ERROR!!! This comes from todays press release "Davies continued to say that the first code delivered had only one error; ConSyGen corrected the error in the translator, re-ran the code through the toolset overnight, and returned the corrected code to her the next day. Tech has been telling us for months that CSGI expects NO ERRORS and the worse part is that CSGI DID NOT FIND THE ERROR, MOTOROLA DID!!! WHAT KIND OF QUALITY CONTROL IS THAT!!! When trying to win a maybe big contract like Tech says this is supposed to be THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR SENDING OUT A FAULTY PRODUCT. I bet that Motorola made them put that line in the press release because otherwise the person that did that should be fired. THIS IS A MAJOR BLUNDER!!! Look below at all the things I found that Tech wrote when I did a search on CSGI and Error. The first one was a talk between Tech and TEDennis. Tech wrote this. CSGI's tool is FULLY-AUTOMATED. No one can manually convert a line of code. The toolset does it all. Therefore, since more people equals a greater chance for errors and CSGI's toolset does not allow people to manually convert code, their error rate will be much less than those who do manual conversions or use automated assisted conversion tools that depend on hundreds of programmers. Actually I believe that once the tool has been configured for the particular conversion, CSGI expects ZERO errors. TEDennis wrote this back. I don't think the final decision on a conversion tool will be made by taking "ZERO errors" comments seriously. There are enough bizarre situations in Y2K problems that most adept software technicians with any Y2K experience will agree that it's darned near impossible to get a zero defect rate. Assuming that's true, then the difference between 98% effective and 99% effective is relatively insignificant. Those isolated weird situations must still be uncovered and dealt with. Manually. The rest of the quotes below are from Tech. Most recently, CSGI announced two completed pilots for MOTOROLA. ConSyGen does have a fully-automated toolset, this toolset does work and code that was converted using this toolset was successfully tested and found to be error free. >> RE: ERROR RATE << Is there some kind of industry average or standard? A while back the Gartner Group put out an est. of 2 to 4 thousand errors per 1 million lines converted. However, those were early numbers based on code converted manually. I believe that there is no set industry standard for the companies such as ALYD or others who have access to tools. The numbers should be dramatically less. In any case, even if you have 1 to 100 errors per 1 million lines, that will cause problems. The real issue here is what will be the source of these errors? Do you know the error rate for any Y2k company ? Yes, I know of one that expects an error rate of ZERO. ConSyGen (CSGI) has the industry's only fully-automated toolset. Their tool automatically finds and converts code. In Fact, NOT ONE LINE OF CODE IS CONVERTED BY A PROGRAMMER, the toolset does it all. A few months ago CSGI announced the first every fully automated conversion project that was successfully finished and tested.