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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8bbb1419c8e81a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com>
Subject: Re: Waiver question
Date: 1997/04/19
Message-ID: <335922B2.30E3@bix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236011324
References: <33585385.C8D@lmtas.lmco.com>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Reply-To: tmoran@bix.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> *  DSP engineers would rather program in C++ than Ada, since it
>      makes them more valuable in the larger commericial marker. As a
>      result, there is much higher attrition when DSP engineers are
>      required to program in Ada, and so the development cost is higher.
> 
  But if the C-trained engineers are actually 'more valuable' doesn't
that mean 'higher priced' so the cost of using them is higher - if not
now, then after they are trained?
  Of course if they are mistaken, and the company is saving money by
letting them believe their notions, that's different.