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) |
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
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.