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: 2002-05-28 19:10:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!mango.news.easynet.net!easynet.net!Quza.UK.peer!nntp.gblx.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!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: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:16:49 -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> <3CF113D6.40601@attbi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1022599014 20106 136.170.200.133 (28 May 2002 15:16:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 May 2002 15:16:54 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:24888 Date: 2002-05-28T15:16:54+00:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:3CF113D6.40601@attbi.com... > > > I've worked on a couple of these studies, and there is really vicious > infighting over the definition of productivity. If you use a bean > counter definition of productivity, like customer calls handled or memos > written productivity will usually go down. If you use a market > definition of productivity such as corporate ROI, productivity goes way > up with PCs. > Its been a while since I read the study, but I believe that it was using some metric based on ROI. (Don't the bean counters use ROI? :-) It was at a fairly gross level across a number of companies so one could still argue that the study was flawed in terms of the metric being impacted by more than just the introduction of computers. (It was some version of "Here's a company that invested a bunch of money in computers. Heres a company that did not. Both are similarly profitable...." I oversimplify, but I think you get the point.) You're right though about arguing over the metrics. Its really hard to come up with a yardstick that can't be criticised heavily and/or manipulated & abused. Money comes darned close though. Its pretty easy to count and you can't argue that it doesn't matter in commercial enterprises. :-) > > Now I am not arguing that Multics would be better than today's Unix > workstations. Workstations have come a long way since then. Just that > you have to be very careful when doing such a study not to define the > study in a way that determines the results in advance. > An age-old management technique - first you define the answer you want, then you go casting about to get the information that supports that answer. I suppose that's why I'm not vice president of engineering at some big firm - I'm not politically inclined enough to forgo science and reason in decision making. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com