Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work

mboucher@silver.sdsmt.edu (Mike Boucher)
Tue, 29 Mar 1994 19:24:13 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work bill@amber.csd.harris.com (1994-03-14)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work baxter@austin.sar.slb.com (1994-03-16)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work steve@cegelecproj.co.uk (1994-03-22)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work bart@cs.uoregon.edu (1994-03-23)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work pardo@cs.washington.edu (1994-03-24)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work bill@amber.csd.harris.com (1994-03-25)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work mboucher@silver.sdsmt.edu (1994-03-29)
Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work bill@amber.csd.harris.com (1994-04-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: mboucher@silver.sdsmt.edu (Mike Boucher)
Keywords: tools, design
Organization: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
References: 94-03-034 94-03-144
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 19:24:13 GMT

Bill Leonard (bill@amber.csd.harris.com) wrote:
: For instance, suppose you're working on a government contract,
: similar to contracts you've worked on before and will likely work on
: again. You see a potential for a reusable component, but it is going to
: take additional effort to make it reusable. You will find it very
: difficult to charge the government for that, and then use the software on
: other government programs.


It also depends on the contract type. On a fixed-price contract, having
access to a body of reusable code gives you an advantage over those who
lack the same infrastructure. However, you would clearly be perfectly
justified in having someone shot who reused code on a cost-plus contract.


    - Mike
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.