TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:06:23 -0800
Reply-To: Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
From: Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: Message from [log in to unmask] (Tucker Taft) of "Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:00:05 EST." <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (22 lines)
From:  [log in to unmask] (Tucker Taft)

> > ...
> > Actually, I think Tucker should (a) bag the "function points" language,
> > and (b) bite the bullet and say that productivity is way higher with
> > Ada, not "at least as high" (what if, say, car dealers said "come on
> > down and trade that car in for a new Belchfire -- it's _at_least_as_good_
> > as what you're driving now!").
> I didn't write the paragraph that talked about function points

Well OK, but you started this whole thing anyway... :-)

Sorry for the misattribution...
-- Mark

P.S. I had meant to add -- for whomever I was addressing :-) -- that there's
empirical and theoretical substantiation for the "way higher
productivity" position.  Steve Zeigler's paper comes to mind (sorry, I
can't remember the title and I don't have a URL handy, but you can find
links to it on the usual pages...)