TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Alan and Carmel Brain <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:02:53 -0500
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Pat Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Subject:
From:
Pat Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Pat Rogers" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Do the project in Ada, it takes 30 people 2 years, then 1 person to
> > > maintain.
> > >
> > > Do it in C++, it takes 30 people 18 months, then 20 people to maintain.
> >
> > <begin rant>
> > No, no, no!  This idea that it generally/usually/always takes longer to
> > develop the initial product in Ada -- i.e. that productivity is lower in
> > Ada -- must not continue to be promulgated
>
> I must disagree.
>
> It takes less time in Ada to make a *working* product. One that pretty
> much does just about all of what it's supposed to. But one that
> sorta kinda appears to work if you don't look closely - good enough for
> release to a non-discerning public used to Microsoft's lack of quality -
> that can be done quicker in C, C++ etc.

You've not said why you think this is inherently so.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2