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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-02 05:10:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil> <3FA3B412.AF3BEB96@fakeaddress.nil> <3FA50083.10709@noplace.com> Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 13:10:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.149.78.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1067778657 141.149.78.42 (Sun, 02 Nov 2003 08:10:57 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 08:10:57 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1920 Date: 2003-11-02T13:10:57+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:3FA50083.10709@noplace.com... > There's an article in the Nov 03 issue of Communications of the ACM > called "Measuring Productivity In The Software Industry" Among other > things it talks about "Understandibility" and the energy lost in trying > to decrypt algorithms coded to minimize the number of keystrokes used to > write them. The authors think that "economy of expression" is > counter-productive. (Although, like most articles on productivity, they > don't have any data to back it up.) > > Its an interesting article, although I find it problematic that they > (like others) make the comparison between software productivity and > microprocessor chip speed. (Basically that microprocessors keep doubling > in speed every so many months and yet software productivity seems to > even be slowing down.) I find this comparison totally unreasonable > because the two things are entirely qualitatively different. What does > the speed at which one tool *runs* have to do with the time it takes to > design another tool? Because Dodge came out with the Viper - which can > run double the speed of the Neon - that should make their engineers > design carbeurators at twice the speed? > > It *might* be fair to compare the *Design Time* of a microprocessor to > the *Design Time* of a software system - but even there, I find a > qualitative difference. In electronics, a designer can develop circuitry > for some function and use it like a brick - put a few million of them > into the chip. He gets credit for a million whozits units on the chip > but really only *designed* one of them. A software engineer designs a > blivet and then moves on to design the next blivet. Does he get credit > for the million times the first blivet gets called in some loop > somewhere? No - he gets credit for designing two blivets. The two things > just can't be counted the same way. > > Anyway, its an interesting article and I liked the criticism of "terse" > programming as being counter-productive. > > MDC > I hear ya. If you take that to the programming world, the easier you want an application to be for it's user the more design (and cosequently programming) it needs. Plain and simple. :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com