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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:08:43 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
  The Zeigler report at
http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html
looks like good data. Why was it not 'adequate'? Was conflicting data
presented? Is it analogous to smoking and lung cancer in that some folks
will never consider it adequate in their lifetimes?
  Or perhaps 'cheaper and less buggy' isn't really important? Is part
of the argument for COTS that 1/N of the cost of a system that's very
expensive is still less than 1/n of a cheaper system if N >> n? What
about the cost to each customer (as opposed to the cost to the vendor)
of more bugs? Are we Ada-philes simply mistaken in our implicit
belief that quality is cost-effective?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2