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-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: KK6GM <mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <bba458aa-1a48-41ae-811c-3fdd7a952653@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <31c357bd-c8dc-4583-a454-86d9c579e5f4@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <05a3673e-fb97-449c-94ed-1139eb085c32@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d4c232a$0$28967$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4D4D6506.50909@obry.net>
 <4d50095f$0$22393$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <wcck4hb95jz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4d6d56c4$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <16u9ka51wbukr$.1fj2sb73j9rv6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d6d627b$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <74986d0a-0d5b-4396-8c77-adff72e870a2@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d6eafc7$0$17913$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <op.vrqh3z1blzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d6eb309$0$17913$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com>
 <1179af04-08fa-4c3e-91f5-8e7dbe455600@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d6eea4d$0$14912$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.5.242.189
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299116312 29636 127.0.0.1 (3 Mar 2011 01:38:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 01:38:32 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.5.242.189;
 posting-account=qZVz2QoAAAAN9WxYp-9jYb7jORc4Zqwt
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Win64;
 x64; Trident/4.0; GTB6.6; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; SLCC2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET
 CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17752
Date: 2011-03-02T17:38:32-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 2, 5:09=A0pm, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/2011 4:34 PM, KK6GM wrote:
>
> > Why would you assume any positive opportunity cost at all (as opposed
> > to a negative opportunity cost, that is, a savings)? =A0Why would you
> > assume that the entire software development/maintenance cycle is
> > cheaper when using tools and methods that produce more bugs?
>
> I assume that taking extra time to fix all known errors and to test
> very thoroughly for unknown errors will incur large costs in time,
> money, and opportunity. Sometimes that works out (Starcraft 2) and
> sometimes it doesn't (Duke Nukem Forever). Of course, I will welcome
> evidence of commercial products that are developed in a way of which
> you approve and succeed in the market.

Why do you assume that the entire development/maintenence cycle would
take more time?  Your comment about testing very thoroughly is
revealing, since it should be common knowledge that you cannot test
quality into software.