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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,885dab3998d28a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ariane 5 failure Date: 1996/10/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 187744524 references: <96100112290401@psavax.pwfl.com> <32531A6F.6EDB@dynamite.com.au> <3252B46C.5E9D@lmtas.lmco.com> <531mdv$tfm@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: iRobert White said ">It's never cost effective to skimp on hardware if it means human >programmers have to write more complex software. Not if the ratio is tilted very heavy towards reoccuring cost versus Non-Reoccuring Engineering (NRE). How about 12 staff-months versus $300 extra hardware cost on 60,000 units?" Of course this is true at some level, but the critical thing is that a proper cost comparison here must take into account: a) full life cycle costs of the software, not just development costs b) time-to-market delays caused by more complex software c) decreased quality and reliability caused by more complex software There are certainly cases where careful consideration of these three factors still results in a decision to use less hardware and more complex software, but I think we have all seen cases where such decisions were made, and n in retrospect turned out to be huge mistakes.