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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:09:31 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <31c357bd-c8dc-4583-a454-86d9c579e5f4@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <05a3673e-fb97-449c-94ed-1139eb085c32@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d4c232a$0$28967$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4D4D6506.50909@obry.net>
 <4d50095f$0$22393$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <wcck4hb95jz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4d6d56c4$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <16u9ka51wbukr$.1fj2sb73j9rv6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d6d627b$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <74986d0a-0d5b-4396-8c77-adff72e870a2@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d6eafc7$0$17913$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <op.vrqh3z1blzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d6eb309$0$17913$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <1179af04-08fa-4c3e-91f5-8e7dbe455600@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <1179af04-08fa-4c3e-91f5-8e7dbe455600@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d6eea4d$0$14912$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4ba0bc7a.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=hHVMOjK447Laj8A4]SSONO^oXGM_6\KV@mX0AG3X_jUOoXBb0:mWiQFUDJR]nRiFOL`40[fPeBVEADAM4`NBg7cC=\anCFAH_6B
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17751
Date: 2011-03-02T20:09:31-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 3/2/2011 4:34 PM, KK6GM wrote:
> Why would you assume any positive opportunity cost at all (as opposed
> to a negative opportunity cost, that is, a savings)?  Why would you
> assume that the entire software development/maintenance cycle is
> cheaper when using tools and methods that produce more bugs?

I assume that taking extra time to fix all known errors and to test
very thoroughly for unknown errors will incur large costs in time,
money, and opportunity. Sometimes that works out (Starcraft 2) and
sometimes it doesn't (Duke Nukem Forever). Of course, I will welcome
evidence of commercial products that are developed in a way of which
you approve and succeed in the market.