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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no 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: 2002-05-01 19:05:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!diablo.theplanet.net!diablo.theplanet.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:42:14 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com> <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net> <3CCFFE11.F0CBE6FE@despammed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1020267737 15067 136.170.200.133 (1 May 2002 15:42:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2002 15:42:17 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23383 Date: 2002-05-01T15:42:17+00:00 List-Id: I recall reading about the study several years ago as I was persuing an MBA. IIRC, the study involved looking at a number of companies that didn't have computerization in any significant way and then they invested large sums of money to put computers in place. By looking at, say, a case where a company invests $5m on computerization and looking at its output per employee, you would expect that this investment ought to result in more output per employee in some manner or it wasn't worth it. Apparently, the numbers didn't get better and the theory goes that employees did things like spend time putting together fancy, typeset memos where they used to just hand-scrawl something and show it to the xerox machine. So its not a forgone conclusion that computers make us more productive. And its not obvious that the reason for lack of productivity gains is because all the companies studied used Microsoft products. :-) Of course a counter argument is that there are just a bunch of things we couldn't do without computers (such as design better products with computer simulations, etc) and so computers are just the price of admission if you want to be competitive. But that doesn't mean the original study isn't important. It goes to show that you really need to look at things carefully to determine if they are an actual benefit. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Wes Groleau" wrote in message news:3CCFFE11.F0CBE6FE@despammed.com... > > It's awfully hard to control all the variables. > For example, there's a big difference between a year of >