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_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 10:42:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 28 Apr 2003 10:42:52 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <20619edc.0304280942.3dfd4e58@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304240953.221ac70f@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250448.5107afef@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304252116.621a4bf4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304260649.366530c5@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304261803.5d26f40e@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051551772 6501 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2003 17:42:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Apr 2003 17:42:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62838 comp.object:62206 comp.lang.ada:36698 misc.misc:13780 Date: 2003-04-28T17:42:52+00:00 List-Id: "AG" wrote in message news:... > "Mike Silva" wrote in message > news:20619edc.0304261803.5d26f40e@posting.google.com... > > > Obviously they're only drivers and dispatchers *by day*. At night, in > > the privacy of their own homes, I'll bet they're *computer > > programmers*! > > Well, no, not really :) In fact that almost always happens in > the middle of the night or wee hours of the morning (when > do you think the trucks get loaded for delivery?) > > Unfortunately, most programmers and/or sys admins > have a bad habit of liking to sleep at that sort of time. > > Which brings us back to the question of reliability: > > - Option one: have a stand-up on-call professional > support with a pager available 24 by 7. Sort of > what fire brigades do [that will cost of course] > > - Option two: have a reliable system with the chance > of catastrophic failure so low that you (or your clients) > are willing to risk it just on statistical basis. > > Which one would you choose if you had to fund it? A lot of people would argue that the reliable system costs no more to develop, when you factor in the higher costs of mid-stream redesign, longer debugging and more customer support for the unreliable version. Then there's also the damage to the vendor's reputation, which can translate into lost sales when it's time to buy new software. > > [Besides, you've said "I'll bet". What do you bet?] Hold on, I think I've got some change here in my car ashtray... (Or how about Easter candy that the kids got too much of and we're looking for an excuse to throw out now?) I mean, really, this is only usenet! :) Mike