Bill McGonigle wrote:
On May 27, 2005, at 11:48, Jim Kuzdrall wrote:The stipulations were: 1) use Linux; 2) use C++.Sounds like they want well-debugged code. 99.99 % of the time the STL classes are better than ones you'd write on a 1-off basis, both in terms of being debugged and in terms of performance. The Army doesn't want its tank being unable to target because of a bug in your String class.
1) Well debugged code is probably not the real reason behind the requirement. About 50% of the time when a gov't customer issues requirements like this it is because they think it is cool and they want to brag their their latest project is fully buzzword compliant. If they wanted solid code they would have stuck with Ada (or gone with Spark perhaps).
2) In the rest of the cases, the language and or OS direction is specified for hopes of some sort of forward thinking interoperability/upgradeability. This of course almost never works out because by the time the system is ready for a substantial upgrade some new cool OS, middleware or language is hot and a rule 1 kicks in causing all of the previously developed code to be discarded.
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
