Guidance on safety-critical development usually advocates very formal development methods, but heavyweight methods can be expensive, and on many projects informal development also plays a part. This paper looks at the advantages and disadvantages of various development styles, and discusses how they can be blended to create a methodology which is both safe and practical.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
9 References
Steve King, Jonathan Hammond, Rod Chapman, Andy Pryor, Is Proof More Cost-Effective Than Testing?, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 26 No 8, August 2000.
Jorgy Rady de Almeida et al, Best Practices in Code Inspection for SafetyCritical Software, IEEE Software, May/June 2003.
Allan Wassyng, Mark Lawford, Software tools for safety-critical software development, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology, 8(4/5): 337-354, 2006.
R Johansson, A fault-tolerant architecture for computer-based railway vehicle brake systems, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., Vol 218 Part F, 2004.
Robert L Glass, Inspections - Some Suprising Findings, Practical Programmer, Communications of the ACM, April 1999.
Barry Boehm and Victor R Basili, Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List, IEEE Computer, January 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ainsworth, M. (2008). Prototyping versus Formal Development. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds) Improvements in System Safety. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-100-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-100-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-099-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-100-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)