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,d89b08801f2aacae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-02 04:31:38 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?
Date: 2 May 2002 06:30:51 -0500
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <Sb8D81Zz$HcE@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <Xns91FEB85DCA09Cderekknosofcouk@62.253.162.108>
 <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com>
 <Xns91FFC7B971B88derekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64>
 <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net>
 <Xns9200929868B11derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.107>
 <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net>
 <Xns9200B524E1781derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.109>
 <slrnactqh7.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnacts3r.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <aamua0$hnd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <uwuuouuwi.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <3CCFD76A.A60BB9Organization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1020339054 14370 192.135.80.34 (2 May 2002
 11:30:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:30:54 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23397
Date: 2002-05-02T06:30:51-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com>, Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> writes:

> On the other hand, if you're writing run-once software, it's pretty easy
> to see that the cleanliness of the design is virtually irrelevant.
> Consider software to animate a crowd of CGI characters in a movie. As
> long as the end result looks good, it doesn't matter what the code looks
> like. It could be the most god-awful mess of spaghetti code and misnamed
> uncommented variables you can imagine, and it just doesn't matter. As
> soon as the film is out, you're never going to run the program again.
> Certainly if the requirement is "make the fur on the monster look
> realistic", the first place to start is not the type system.

I wonder whether there is such a thing as non-trivial run-once software.
There may be only one _production_ run, but amongst all the trials one
might have many many runs before the result achieves quality.

If I were given the assignment and was able to complete it, the final
source would at the very least be littered with historical comments
like "tried doubling the X value and the monster's fur looked like
concrete".