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 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: 2002-05-07 03:48:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!freenix!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!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: Mon, 6 May 2002 13:54:34 -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> <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net> <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com> <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> <3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com> <3CD1B496.DBE8ADC4@san.rr.com> <3CD1DE85.C00AD2A9@san.rr.com> <3CD329FE.C067B6CE@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1020707675 4716 136.170.200.133 (6 May 2002 17:54:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 May 2002 17:54:35 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:23627 Date: 2002-05-06T17:54:35+00:00 List-Id: Maybe. Maybe not. I have not made a thorough study of it, but have read some descriptions of it. But as for "Waterfall" - I don't think anybody ever actually did anything of significance in a pure "Waterfall" method - even if they say they did. Almost any project of size has to deal with changes midstream that require going back to revisit requirements or design or other things along the way - thus really creating a kind of spiral model. Most of the projects I've been on have involved iterative builds of some sort - how fast and when are always an issue. Keep in mind that a lot of technologies have come out where adherents start to think they have found a panacea - including Ada. Usually, you gain something and give something else up along the way. Not that Ada or XP or isn't going to possibly produce a step forward, but usually it isn't as "revolutionary" as the marketers would have you believe and you still need something approximating "science" demonstrating that it does some good (and in what circumstances) rather than relying on gut instinct, perceptions or theory. Software really has a hard time with this. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Darren New" wrote in message news:3CD329FE.C067B6CE@san.rr.com... > > Um, I think you've not read enough. Or you've read it thru > preconception-filters that keep you from seeing what's going on there. > Not saying that it's good or bad, but it's certainly nothing that a > cowboy coder could ever manage. The process is quite formal. It's just > not "waterfall". >