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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!srcsip!futility!jclark
From: jclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Jeff Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Rational ADA development environment
Message-ID: <58034@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 17:03:56 GMT
References: <405@wmt.UUCP> <595@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <4722@rtech.rtech.com>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
In-reply-to: dennism@menace.rtech.COM's message of 10 Feb 90 20:10:31 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4722@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore) writes:

>   Isn't this typical for a government project?!?  40,000 LOC and 2,500 pages
>   of documentation?  Are you serious?  40,000 lines of code is 667 pages (at
>   60 lines per page).  That's almost 4 pages of documentation per line of
>   code, even if your LOC counter doesn't count blank lines or comments as
>   lines. 
>
>   If ADA is such a wonderful, self-documenting, easy to code, easy to
>   understand, easy to maintain language (as the government claims it is),
>   then why are 2,500 pages of documentation necessary?

Hmmmm...  When the users of *your* software systems need to learn how to
effectively make use of your products do you usually respond "Let them read
the source code..."?  Wasn't somebody famous once beheaded for an attitude
like this? :-)

Jeff Clark	Honeywell Systems and Research Center	Minneapolis, MN
inet: jclark@src.honeywell.com
uucp: jclark@srcsip.UUCP
DISCLAIMER: If you think I speak for my employer, you need serious help ...