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, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1143c4,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid1143c4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1db77fbb2768946e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-03 13:35:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.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: linux.dev.kernel,comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is Linux right for Embedded? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:27:11 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9pfsb1$hma$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BB69F21.B5AA7451@intercom.com> <9pcvbn$r52$1@xmission.xmission.com> <9pd4s402bga@drn.newsguy.com> <9pfcps$p0l$1@xmission.xmission.com> <9pfeiu$cfr$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9pfj8a$ebc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002140833 18122 136.170.200.133 (3 Oct 2001 20:27:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 20:27:13 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 linux.dev.kernel:4493 comp.realtime:3956 comp.lang.ada:13689 Date: 2001-10-03T20:27:13+00:00 List-Id: I was rather thinking about the case where someone develops software for a product and the product lives for a relatively short time and the *next* product that comes along reuses little to none of the existing code because it is sufficiently "new" to warrant a whole new development. You might see this in some kinds of consumer electronics products and some PC types of apps, where basically a whole new look&feel needs to be developed every year to 18 months. In effect, the developers are building throw-away code. Granted, part of the reason this may be done is that the language of implementation makes it sufficiently hard to maintain, enhance or reuse, so it becomes more cost effective to pitch it and start over. Some of the reason it might get done is simply to guarantee a difference with every release. Some of the reason may be because the company wants to avoid the costs involved in building systems that will hang around for a long time or have big reuse factors. (You produce little to no design artifacts and have to do little to no configuration management and certainly don't need to produce much in the way of programmer documentation or provide for a lot of customer problem reporting. If you can build the thing all over again from bottom dead center at less cost than doing a *good* job, maybe you don't need to do a *good* job?) I'll easily concede that Ada buys you a lot for long-lived systems or developing reusable code or any of the conditions that may keep what you build around for five years. I'd just offer that even when you don't have long-lifespan concerns, Ada can make a lot of sense from a reliability and time-to-market perspective as well. 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/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:jeKu7.14722$ev2.24082@www.newsranger.com... > > I wasn't talking specificaly about maintenance. Just because you have to > *develop* quickly doesn't mean that people won't be trying to use that software > 5 years from now. It also doesn't mean that developers won't be trying to use > your sources 5 years from now. In a short-cycle environment reuse of old code > from the previous generation is vital to a project's success. What you don't > want in that enviroment is to find yourself stuck with a language that was > designed to promote *itself*, rather than reuse. >