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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/12/17
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Dec17133753@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204583623
references: <55ea3g$m1j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Date: 1996-12-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.850510784@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

  > One changed factor is that, using GNAT technology, the cost of a port
  > is an order of magnitude less than it was with some of the Ada 83
  > technologies. This does not mean it is always worth doing a special
  > port, but it does mean that it is more practical in more cases.

   Yes, and the government is geting its money's worth out of the GNAT
technology.

   But some people on the list might not understand what is meant by a
large project.  I have worked on several projects using COTS compiler
technology where the development software budget was over a million
dollars.  It sounds like a lot, but if you have 200 programmers at 25K
per seat total over the life of the project (software plus support),
that is $5 million.

   A half million dollars to port a compiler is in the noise, but what
isn't in the noise is the time required.  If the compiler isn't ready
on time, you have all those programmers twiddling their thumbs.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...