Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!brockman
From: brockman@netcom.com (daniel brockman)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <brockmanDEvptu.BG8@netcom.com>
Organization: Life, Liberty, Love, Money and Art
References: <41kqie$2j9@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <hbaker-2508950831210001@192.0.2.1> <42dm1p$kks@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 04:58:42 GMT
Lines: 21
Sender: brockman@netcom6.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:38304 comp.lang.eiffel:10847 comp.lang.c++:148816 comp.lang.smalltalk:28320

In article <42dm1p$kks@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> writes:
>In article <26h5Zh$02s@zoe.pcix.com> , traymond@pcix.com writes:
>>Well, lets put it this way.  It seems that the languages that
>>have the highest programmer productivity are untyped.  You
>>can draw some conclusions from that.
>
>What is meant by productivity? Is this a full life cycle defn,
>such that errors found months/years later detract from the
>productivity "number"?
>
>Dale


Of course it's not full life cycle measure.  Not even the
oops zealots actually measure theier productivity.

db
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Brockman San Francisco brockman@netcom.com 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
