Re: Re^2: Ada 9X objectives

[rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn)]

jcardow@blackbird.afit.af.mil (James E. Cardow) writes about the problems
in shortening the Ada language update cycle.  His points were good, yet I
was left with the feeling that there was something wrong underneath.  I
finally decided that it's this:

> ...Consider the ten to twenty year development cycle for large projects...

If you have a ten-year development cycle for a software project, you're
going to be producing obsolete software!  You can't help it.  Ten years is
just too long for anything tied to computers--the technology moves too
fast.

You've got to get software up and working, and performing at least some of
the needed functions *soon*.  You also need it to be adaptable, so that it
can evolve as needs and technology change.

What I'm getting at is that I think we're trying to address the wrong
problem.  Rather than trying to solve "How do we deal with long development
cycles?" we should be solving "How do we shorten the development cycles?"
-- 
+---------+     Dick Dunn    rcd@ico.isc.com    ico!rcd      (303)449-2870
| In this |         4th annual MadHatterDay [10/6/89]:
|  style  |               Madness takes its toll
|__10/6___|