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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-28 08:27:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!news.primus.ca!news.primus.ca!newsfeed.torontointernetxchange.net!feed.cgocable.net!read1.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3GU%b.304$n37.74561@read2.cgocable.net> Subject: Re: Those "home hobbyists..." (was: No call for Ada) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:23:10 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1077985763 24.150.168.167 (Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:29:23 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:29:23 EST Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5925 Date: 2004-02-28T11:23:10-05:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:QZX%b.138984$uV3.668666@attbi_s51... > > "Ben's hobby is restoring vintage motorcycles." > One suspects Ben could restore a lot more motorcycles if he bought a > large repair shop with the best modern tools, and hired the best > mechanics. But he is probably not interested in motorcycles > restored/month, and he probably doesn't want to spend the time or > money for such a shop. Precisely! He is interested in quality, not quantity. If I were buying a custom motorcycle, I'd prefer to buy it from a guy who does the "labour of love" vs the guy whos interested in max profits. > Given the prior discussion, I interpreted "home hobbyist" to mean one > who has a limited budget and isn't necessarily interested in the most > efficiently productive way to get a lot done. Efficiency in software production doesn't equate necessarily to quality. That is a leap of faith. > As opposed to one who > is doing the activity to earn his daily bread, and is thus very > interested in productivity, and is willing to pay a lot for it. So what's the point? The fact that you paid for your software, does not necessarily imply that it is better. The real question, is better for whom? There is no "best car" for example. If you like to pay for all of your software, then don't let me stop you. -- Warren W. Gay http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg