From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decuac!grebyn!ted
From: ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Another view on productivity.
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.021504.5886@grebyn.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 02:15:04 GMT
Organization: Grebyn Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The recent article containing the view I mentioned on productivity was
by Charles A. Rovira, writing in the Jan 91 issue of Computer Language,
p 119.  The article shows the opposite possible extreme from the 3 lines
of code per day mentioned in my recent article as an example of Ada
"productivity".  I did not mean to say, by the way, that productivity
was the chief knock against Ada...  compared to the Stevens and Brown
tasking model of Ada ("It shall not be the case that a lesser-priority
task shall be running and a higher-priority task not..."), the 3-lines-
of-code-per-day business pales.  It's just that Ada zealots claim
productivity as one of Ada's STRONG points.  At 3 lines per day, I'd
hate to see what one of its weaker points was.

Ted Holden
HTE