TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional 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
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Mike Brenner <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:45:27 -0400
Mike Brenner <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (29 lines)
Mike > ... add the WITHs up carefully ...

Jean-Pierre > how do you count: with A.B.C;
            > on the one hand it is equivalent to with A, A.B, A.B.C;
            > it is likely that the programmer uses only the ultimate child

Thank you, you are right, what I presented counted this as a single WITH.
Not three WITHs. To count it as three, a bit more work would need to be done.

Is it worth doing that extra work, when the only the ultimate child
is going to be imported?

Yes, because the COUPLING includes the other two. Specifically, the
maintenance programmer must check EACH of the other two for possible
impacts of any change.

Therefore, it makes sense to count the dotted ones as extra WITHs.
The main cost in software is maintenance, not development. And the
main cost of maintenance is analyzing the impact of change.

To avoid the cost of analyzing the impact of change, most
maintenance organizations spend a lot of money on debugging
and testing. However, this is not a rational way to manage
maintenance organizations, since the cost of debugging and testing
buggy code far exceeds the cost of analyzing the impact of change
in most cases.

Mike Brenner