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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-20 18:20:30 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Date: 20 Nov 1994 20:20:30 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Message-ID: <3ap05e$o15@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1994-11-20T20:20:30-06:00 List-Id: In article , Jean D. Ichbiah wrote: >In article beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith) writes: >>From: beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith) > >>There are certainly many domains where the cost of rewriting can't >>be justified to achieve a superior API. It's nice to know that >>the C++ code can be reused. However, if you are going to reuse >>the code frequently I suggest applying the power of Ada 9X >>directly to the problem via a rewrite. Otherwise, the C++ code >>you reuse may be your biggest detriment. > >Can you seriously talk of rewriting frameworks of classes as encompassing >as Borland's OWL, Microsoft Foundation classes, or Zinc? Does not make much >sense to me and goes against the most important lesson we have learnt in >the past twenty years: Reuse, Reuse, Reuse, ... > >Not only the overwhelming difficulty of rewriting the code. But you will >have to test it, certify it, and ... maintain it. And if you have not been >discouraged by this mountain of effort, you will have to produce user >documentation of comparable quality - in paper an on-line - to that >existing for these frameworks. > >See you in a few hundred man-years. > Jean, that's not fair to Bill. It has been clear from his anecdotes that he _is_ concerned with costs across the "life cycle". You may be pounding the pulpit about reuse, but the reality is that there's also a cost to reuse software. It's only when we wisely compare the respective costs (emphasis on "wisely", and I think Bill very much qualifies) that we can make reasonable decisions. Admittedly the heuristics for such comparisons are somewhat thin right now, but many experienced developers (those that have not fossilized into a particular school of thought) can make a pretty good estimate. -- Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command: ||________________ "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.) Just another dull, stodgy, non-creative developer who uses Ada.