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, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52d2ab9c3dfbc246 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-13 06:08:27 PST Path: sparky!uunet!fedfil!news From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada scandal makes front page of Wash. Post business section Message-ID: <342@fedfil.UUCP> Date: 13 Mar 93 13:46:44 GMT References: <335@fedfil.UUCP* Organization: HTE Date: 1993-03-13T13:46:44+00:00 List-Id: In article , emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: * *One of the interesting things we've noticed over the last few years as *our contractors started using Ada is that it's easier to spot *disasters. It used to be that we wouldn't discover that a program was *totally screwed up until close to delivery. Now, we can tell pretty *early into the program when it won't make it. We still don't know *what to do about it, but at least the problems become visible earlier. You mean like when a prototype due in 1990 is still a year out (so they say) in 1993? Can you imagine where we might be (actually, in a Japanese coal mine in West Virginia) had we had that sort of fast recovery time for projects in 1941? It gets easier to spot disasters when there are more of them to spot... you get more practice at it. People watching Ada disasters should be getting awfully good at spotting disasters by now. -- Ted Holden HTE