Re: Continued discussion of Ada compiler response query.

[schallen@dinl.uucp (Eric Schallenmueller)]

In article <8587@fy.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> 
> Eric, let me urge you most strongly to rethink this position.  You seem
> to be trying to fix a symptom - the long overnight rebuilds - rather
> than the cause - a software structure where a core module is too
> visible and too volatile.

I'll certainly pass the info on, Robert.  Unfortunately the decision is not
mine to make.  I can only make recommendations, such as yours to my colleagues
and hope they take the appropriate action.

> Under those circumstances, experience surely teaches us this: the design
> won't work; you won't be able to finish a quality product; and even if
> you do ship something, it will be unmaintainable.  The ONLY answer is to
> go back and do it right.  Moreover, if you have to backtrack, the sooner
> you do it - the earlier in the life cycle and development path you take
> the hit - the cheaper it will be and the better the result will be.

I agree and appreciate the input.  It's unfortunate that circumstance didn't 
allow (ooh, bad choice of words here) the proper design to begin with.  We 
have certainly learned a lesson -- I hope.

> The choice to stick with this design is not open to you.  As I see it,
> your only choices are redesign or failure.  Please take a hard look
> at this advice; it is based on a lot of my own mistakes that I would
> not want others to repeat.

I hear you loud and clear.  We'll see what happens.

Thanks again,

Eric

P.S.  Robert, I believe you know a colleague of mine:  Cathy Peavy, from the
Ada Technology Conference.  Ring a bell?