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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-13 06:37:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:29:17 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9l8kne$72r$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9jrt62$38t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B619A6D.5DD6E782@home.com> <3B6636BA.96FD8348@home.com> <9kb3ub$hdo$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kchn1$lng$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9klokd0nif@drn.newsguy.com> <3B706ADC.B4847AC3@home.com> <9kprk1$pof$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B75C020.E00D149C@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997709358 7259 136.170.200.133 (13 Aug 2001 13:29:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2001 13:29:18 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11844 Date: 2001-08-13T13:29:18+00:00 List-Id: Well, a sane company might *try* to sell something on those terms (pay me everything now and I'll give you a product later and/or pay me the full development cost plus profit). However I doubt that ery many sane *customers* would go for it. Its not that these sort of arrangements don't ever happen. Note that the giovernment often engages in exactly this sort of arrangement (Well, maybe with progress payments rather than up front, but the risk is minimal to the company. As long as they deliver on time, they get paid - often cost plus, but not as much as it used to be.) The reason is quite simple: The government is often buying products where a) the technology is totally unproven, b) the usage is limited to some very small application domain, c) they aren't going to let you sell the product anywhere else. The contractor is in effect in an impossible risk position if the government doesn't fund the development cost. There may be times when there are similar situations in the private sector. (unproven technology, limited usage, proprietary capabilities). You may see some companies funding a development under these conditions. However, it is a lot more rare than most developments and as I've pointed out elsewhere, the customer is in a position to apply a lot of leverage on the suplier and is not likely to give up the end result without some good and valuable consideration. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Larry Elmore" wrote in message news:3B75C020.E00D149C@home.com... > > > > IOW: You go build it - if I like it and find it worth the price you charge, > > I buy it. It isn't usually done in the other order - unless you're the > > government! :-) > > I don't think any halfway sane company would even attempt to sell > anything on those terms (full payment up-front, before anything is > provided), but I'm sure a lot of custom software is developed with > partial payments paid upon achievement of intermediate goals, and even > with some money paid up-front. Certainly a lot of construction jobs are > done that way. >