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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,eb664162efb14c78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-14 17:16:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Why would it take so long to write an Ada compiler? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:17:56 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.86.44.40 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1039915001 210.86.44.40 (Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:16:41 NZDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:16:41 NZDT Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31833 Date: 2002-12-15T14:17:56-08:00 List-Id: "Mike" wrote in message news:MPG.1865cca835f2ccee98991a@News.CIS.DFN.DE... > > Hello, > > I've read somewhere that to make an Ada95 compliant compiler, 50 years-man of > work are generally considered what is necessary. > > How is this huge quantity of development time justified? Perhaps required for > the standard library? I'll bite this time ;) Do you really consider 50 man-years a *lot* for a compiler? Let's see ... that equals 25 people for 2 years ... Hmmm, including all the overhead and what not. Of course that must include QA too. Not to mention some regular operational overhead and the chance/risk of failure which you would also have to provide for (in man-years, that is, since someone would need to handle that).