Re: Ada is not a failure.

[ryptyde!mshapiro@nosc.mil (Michael Shapiro)]

mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J. Zwick) writes:
(regarding the cost of software development being a "sunk cost")
> 
/
> usual? Easy, because you could never sell enough to cover your costs of
> development and production. Why on earth would you invest money into somethin
> where the management says "We need $x million to develop this software. Our
> plans are to sell it at some price regardless of development costs."? If
> someone risks money, they expect a return on their investment. Otherwise, why
> invest? The gamble continues until you WIN or LOSE, not when you place the be
> on the table.
> 

A significant difference between hardware (like a car) and software is
the manufacturing cost.  Development cost itself may be similar.  If 
you're really interested in these differences, I suggest you find my 
article "Software is a product . . . NOT!" in the September 1992 IEEE 
Computer magazine (p. 128).  For reasons I discuss in the paper, I feel 
we can understand software economics much better if we treat it as a
SERVICE, not a PRODUCT.  If management accepts this attitude, I believe 
that all the aspects of the life-cycle of software become easier to 
understand and plan.

--                    
INTERNET:  mshapiro@netlink.nix.com (Michael Shapiro)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!mshapiro
Network Information eXchange * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115