home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!lamaster
- From: lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster)
- Subject: Re: Commercial realities of porting (was: Request for reuse tool info)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec16.185930.18838@news.arc.nasa.gov>
- Sender: usenet@news.arc.nasa.gov
- Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
- References: <2311@sousa.tay.dec.com> <Bz9Kzo.HAM@unx.sas.com> <1992Dec15.064809.25388@netcom.com> <BzBD2w.E6w@NeoSoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:59:30 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <BzBD2w.E6w@NeoSoft.com>, claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
-
- (Many statements that I agree with completely deleted).
-
- For now,
- |> though, my best judgment continues to be that
- |> people overestimate the costs of porting source,
- |> and underestimate the costs of supporting multiple
- |> platforms.
-
- I agree with everthing said, HOWEVER:
-
- Never underestimate the value of maintaining source code which compiles
- and runs correctly in many different architectures/environments. In my
- experience, the best software packages are those that have been rewritten
- after multiple ports to eliminate the last vestiges of non-portability.
- And, if there are bits and pieces which can't port, at least they can
- be identified clearly, isolated, and even coelesced, with many benefits.
- Porting and maintaining your code to/on Sun, DEC, SGI, HP, IBM, Convex ...,
- and, particularly, Cray, *can* add a tremendous amount to "quality" if the
- process is done with the idea of producing a product which is as clean
- as possible.
-
- --
- Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-9, UUCP: ames!lamaster
- NASA Ames Research Center Internet: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
- Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Or: lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov
- Phone: 415/604-1056 #include <usenet/std_disclaimer.h>
-