Re: Ada vendors abandon Ada in November Emb.Sys.Prog.

[whiting_ms@corning.com (whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting))]

In article <39dpnv$9bt@rational.rational.com>, kdm@puppy.rational.com (Kent Mitchell) writes:
> Gregory Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) wrote:
> [ snipped out a lot of stuff which is the standard stuff about Ada vendor
> not spending THEIR OWN MONEY they way Greg think they should (i.e. on
> advertising ]
> 
> :      "And when you consider that through the life cycle of your average large
> : system, changes amount to eight time the original cost, you quickly see the
> : financial significance of Ada's software design".  Well by reading just the
> : text of this ad, I don't see the financial significance of Ada.  There is no
> : data to make such a conclusion, so claiming it not only is wrong, but plays
> : on the vaporware fears of many programming consumers.  Further no one is going
> : to believe any such claims made by something coming out of the defense world.
> : And finally, "life cycle" is a phrase with little meaning in the commercial
> : software world, unfortunately.  So selling to that need will fall on deaf
> : ears, especially when you mention nothing about the size and speed of 
> : executables, which do concern commercial programmers.  You might as well claim
> : that Ada cures AIDS, a claim that follows as logically from the ad as the
> : claim of Ada's financial benefits.
> 
> I agree with Greg that the ad did very little to "prove" it's conclusion.
> However, the statement that the term "life cycle" is not used in the
> commercial world is complete bunk.  This is exactly the term used in all
> cases I've been involved with in the commercial world (remember with
> Greg's assertion that Rational is abandoning Ada all I ever seem to do is
> visit commercial sites these days ;-) ).  To say that life cycle cost mean
> nothing to the commercial world when compared to "the size and speed of
> the executable" show how little Greg really knows about commercial software
> development.  Commercial software development is *more* concerned with life
> cycle costs as they are (to use a well known refrain) SPENDING THEIR OWN
> MONEY.
> 
-- 

Well, as one who writes software in the "commercial world", and increasingly
buys COTS software for "commercial" use, I beg to differ.  Life cycle costs are
given much lip service in the commercial world, but I rarely see decisions made
that truly reflect consideration of much beyond the initial costs.  Most
managers in "civilian" companies know that they will be long gone on to their
next job before the maintenance costs of their decisions become visible. 
Managers are rewarded (as are engineers, BTW) most heavily for what they've
done in the past YEAR; not what they did 5, 10, or more years previous.  Many
companies don't even keep performance records on their employees for more than
5 years!  What sticks in the collective corporate memory are the events such
as on time, or under budget project completions, or introduction of some snazzy
new technology ... not the fact that a system has very low life cycle costs. 
I'll bet that most companies don't even TRACK software maintenance costs.  I've
run across only one company that does and I've talked with lots of folks from
lots of companies over the past 12 years.

It is my opinion though that the increased use of COTS software may finally
change this.  I know that my company is starting to pay attention to software
maintenance costs now that it gets yearly bills from vendors for annual
maintenance fees!  Many used to think that our internal software developers and
maintainers were inefficient and costly, but nobody ever tracked the costs so
it was largely urban (corporate?) legend.  Now that the costs are painfully
visible and ramping up fast as we buy more and more COTS products, people are
starting to take notice.  I've even heard some managers begin to talk about the
costs of COTS actually being higher on a lifecycle basis...

--
Matthew S. Whiting, P.E.   | PP-ASEL-IA | All opinions expressed herein are
Corning Incorporated       |            | strictly personal.
whiting_ms@corning.com     |            |