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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-23 05:33:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B5C0BA7.B4322896@earthlink.net> From: "Marc A. Criley" Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <9j1uio$8br$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com> <9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com> <7E9CC98C0715E092.A91B89D11C0D9738.014E27B4F97A2D54@lp.airnews.net> <9jgfb4025b7@drn.newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:27:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 158.252.123.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 995891239 158.252.123.214 (Mon, 23 Jul 2001 05:27:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 05:27:19 PDT X-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 05:24:34 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10470 Date: 2001-07-23T12:27:19+00:00 List-Id: "..@t" wrote: > > In article <7E9CC98C0715E092.A91B89D11C0D9738.014E27B4F97A2D54@lp.airnews.net>, > > > Where Ada shines, as Condic > >observes, is that the total lifecycle costs, the ongoing support costs, the > >bugfinding and fixing costs in the out years, are MUCH lower than with > >C/C++. This is an issue that some commercial software companies > >fundamentally choose to ignore: once the product is sold to the end loser, > >it isn't their problem any more, as long as the buglist is not so egregious > >as to turn the loser off forever. > > > But the above is how the commerical software world works. > > The manager only cares about shipping the thing out of the door on time, > so they can show they met the schedule and get the raise they wanted, they > careless how buggy or well designed or documented it is. Let the next manager > or the QA manager worry about it, becuase the manager who shipped the product > will be somewhere else by then any way. > > welcome to the realworld. In the world where long-term and lifecycle costs do matter, i.e., the world of defense contracting (where few would argue that it is not infrequently divorced from "the real world" :-), Ada is a "win" in the reduction of life-cycle costs. But what is happening is that some such contractors, seeing to emulate the commercial software _development_ model, are adapting C++, etc., in the expectation that they'll be able to tap into the available development expertise, and lifecycle costs (as usual) are an afterthought. Commercial software developers rarely worry about lifecycle costs, and those abandoning Ada have ignored that trait of commercial firms. Marc A. Criley Senior Staff Engineer Quadrus Corporation www.quadruscorp.com