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,eb664162efb14c78
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-16 11:26:59 PST
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:50:36 +0800
From: Adrian Hoe <mailbox@*nospam*adrianhoe.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US;
 rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why would it take so long to write an Ada compiler?
References: <MPG.1865cca835f2ccee98991a@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <ZJQK9.4358$Q11.75217@news.xtra.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: akh-131-14.tm.net.my
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: akh-131-14.tm.net.my
Message-ID: <3dfdd92b_2@news.tm.net.my>
X-Trace: news.tm.net.my 1040046379 akh-131-14.tm.net.my (16 Dec 2002 21:46:19
 +0800)
Organization: TMnet Malaysia
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news1.tm.net.my
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31909
Date: 2002-12-16T22:50:36+08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

AG wrote:

> "Mike" <spamnotme@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1865cca835f2ccee98991a@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> 
>>Hello,
>>
>>I've read somewhere that to make an Ada95 compliant compiler, 50 years-man
>>
> of
> 
>>work are generally considered what is necessary.
>>
>>How is this huge quantity of development time justified? Perhaps required
>>
> for
> 
>>the standard library?
>>
> 
> I'll bite this time ;) Do you really consider 50 man-years a *lot* for a
> compiler?
> Let's see ... that equals 25 people for 2 years ... Hmmm, including all the
> overhead
> and what not. Of course that must include QA too. Not to mention some
> regular
> operational overhead and the chance/risk of failure which you would also
> have
> to provide for (in man-years, that is, since someone would need to handle
> that).
> 
> 
> 

or 50 people for a year... or 100 people for 0.5 years? That's 
mystical man-year... :-)

-- 
type Dmitry is new Adrian;           -- Adrian Hoe
                                      -- http://adrianhoe.com
                                      -- Remove *nospam* to email