🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10602@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes:
>In article <935@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley) writes:
>>There is no reason why the revisions should not be pipelined.  And
>>what is wrong with some people using pre-validated compilers?  After
>>all that is how much of the rest of the computing industry works at
>>the moment.  It is often better to use a new, somewhat flakey compiler
>>now if it offers significant benefits.
>Are you serious???  It's better to use a somewhat flakey compiler???
>
>Those of us trying to solve real world problems can't afford to use
>a "slightly flakey compiler".  When shipping product to make money to
>feed the kids, spending days tracking down weird bugs caused by flakey
>compilers isn't the way to stay in business!

I agree.  If you spend more time debugging your tool than creating your
application, you are spending too much time on someone elses product.
This is an easy and dangerous trap to fall into.  Interestingly, Barry
Boehm's COCOMO model lists the following constants for VIRT or Virtual
machine volatility (Virtual machine volatility corresponds to the 
software tool you are using, e.g., compiler, database, etc.)

		Rating (from Intermediate COCOMO)
Low		Nominal		High		Very High
.87		1.00		1.15		1.30

These constants are somewhat high reflecting the additional time you
must spend when debugging the tool you are using rather than spending time
building your application.
	Scott Simpson
	TRW Space and Defense Sector
	usc!trwarcadia!simpson  	(UUCP)
	trwarcadia!simpson@usc.edu	(Internet)