Path: utzoo!censor!comspec!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!mcsun!ukc!pyrltd!root44!praxis!itcp From: itcp@praxis.co.uk (Tom Parke) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Effort estimation based on language (APL) Message-ID: <5685@newton.praxis.co.uk> Date: 14 Feb 91 13:26:21 GMT References: <7790001@hpwrce.HP.COM> Organization: Praxis, Bath, UK Lines: 24 theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) writes: >kingsley@hpwrce.HP.COM (Kingsley Morse) writes: >> My understanding is that APL is the most productive language to >> use. However, it's hard to read, so the learning curve is long and >> steep. I remember a study by IBM showing that applications can be >> developed 4 - 10 times faster with APL. >Development with APL *may* be faster or easier BUT to use APL for a >product that will have a life of more than a few runs is IMHO NUTS. >Even the best APL programs are basically _unmaintainable_ by *anyone* >including the developer. Yup, my first ever computer job was maintaining a suit of APL code. It was fun (I was young) because it was *so* hard. I recall there was a three liner that took an entire day to comprehend. Tom -- Tom Parke (my opinions and spelling are strictly temporary) itcp@praxis.co.uk Praxis, 20 Manvers St., Bath BA1 1PX, UK