Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: bridge building (was Re: Documenting OO Systems) Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 91 21:19:11 GMT References: <33407@mimsy.umd.edu> <1991Apr25.200023.5334@intellistor.com> Sender: news@Rational.COM Distribution: na Lines: 24 >I think your .sig indicates that you agree, or at least that >you quote someone who agrees: >>* "Beyond 100,000 lines of code, you should probably be coding in Ada." * >>* - P.G. Plauger, Convener and Secretary of the ANSI C Committee * >That is, there are times when ANY software methodology may not work. Not at all--I have been involved in several MEGA-SLOC projects that were completed satisfactorily. Clearly, something DID work. See, the reason I think software can be engineered like anything else is that I've seen that done in actual practice, and on some of the largest and most complex projects ever attempted. As for the quote itself, Plauger's point is that Ada is a language designed from the ground up to support software engineering, whereas C most decidedly is not (I do hear they recently made it harder to pass an arbitrary number of arguments of arbitrary type to a C function, so I guess progress is being made....). -- * "Beyond 100,000 lines of code, you should probably be coding in Ada." * * - P.G. Plauger, Convener and Secretary of the ANSI C Committee * * * * The opinions expressed herein are my own. *