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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-25 05:43:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 25 Apr 2003 05:43:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0304250443.47bd2aa9@posting.google.com> References: <8qkczsAcGcn+Ew83@nildram.co.uk> <3EA04A1E.CAFC1FEF@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0304221126.7112b7d5@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.26 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051274622 15414 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2003 12:43:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Apr 2003 12:43:42 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62654 comp.object:61945 comp.lang.ada:36531 misc.misc:13677 Date: 2003-04-25T12:43:42+00:00 List-Id: "AG" wrote in message news:... > "Tom Welsh" wrote in message > news:WLKGbLATlNq+EwiQ@nildram.co.uk... > > > There are, of course, many other reasons for the relatively low level of > > software quality - notably the absence of explicit demand (as expressed > > through the traditional medium of cash). > > That's true. There is also a small matter that no customer > is really interested in quality as such. As long as the software > performs as expected it's fine (as far as the user is concerned > it may be made of duct tape). So you think quality has nothing to do with performing as expected? When I buy a car, I want it to perform as expected, I don't CARE what methodology they used or didn't use to get it to perform as expected. If they used a methodology that they though was the epitome of perfection, but the car broke down every six months, I would not buy it. And if some other company was able to use duct tape, but had a product that ran for 20 years without maintenance, I would buy it. Whether they use duct tape or not is not my concern. Why should I expect software buyers to be any different? (Thanks for illuminating the Ada advocates' mentality perfectly, btw!)