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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-09 23:57:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!lon1-news.nildram.net!195.149.20.147.MISMATCH!mercury.nildram.co.uk!not-for-mail Message-ID: <5s29SIA1KKv+EwcU@nildram.co.uk> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 07:56:53 +0100 From: Tom Welsh Reply-To: Tom Welsh Sender: Tom Welsh Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090937.2bbe1238@posting.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.208.100.157 X-Trace: 1052549854 mercury.nildram.net 45184 213.208.100.157 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63452 comp.object:63145 comp.lang.ada:37135 Date: 2003-05-10T07:56:53+01:00 List-Id: In article <9fa75d42.0305090937.2bbe1238@posting.google.com>, soft-eng writes >"Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:$79o$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>... > >> "competent" and most had many years of experience, but still, the language >> made a difference to the bottom line. My competitors are still using C. I >> say "Good for them!" My improved productivity and reduced defects translates > >If you can indeed have improved productivity and reduced defects, >it stands to reason that your competitor will not be doing very >well versus you! > >Bottom lines do count. If time after time it so happened >that people using Ada out-competed the ones using C, >others would start taking notice. > Such "bottom-line" comparisons are usually vitiated by failure to account for total lifetime costs (total cost of ownership). Having followed the software development industry for the last 20 years, I have been struck time and again by the short-term nature of buying decisions. Usually, people simply do not take into account how much it will cost to maintain and/or extend an application over 10, 20 or 30 years. Indeed, these lifetimes themselves are often grossly underestimated - one of the reasons for the Y2K panic. It's not surprising, as decision-makers are usually not technically knowledgeable - and even if they were, it's more art than science. But how many times have we heard of projects going to the low bidder, who ends up (surprise, surprise!) costing far more than the higher bidder with a better grip on quality? And that's just for implementation! One of the main reasons for the whole Ada initiative was to reduce the cost of the whole software lifecycle - not just initial development. But because that TCO is so hard to measure, Ada has not been given credit for reducing it. -- Tom Welsh