On 15/12/09 21:19, Anton van Straaten wrote:
Without that advocacy, this client would have used Java by default. As it was, the first of those two systems was developed in parallel with a Java version, and we used the two versions to verify each other's results. For the second system, a Java version wasn't deemed necessary, partly because the comparison succeeded in making Haskell's advantages sufficiently clear.
Can you give us some more details on this dual-language project? I'm trying to collect objective evidence of the relative advantages of Haskell and Java (or any other languages) and this kind of comparison is gold dust. Very few companies are prepared to develop the same system twice.
SLOC counts are good objective evidence (preferably from a standard SLOC counter such as http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/). Days of effort in development and defect counts are also powerful (although more subject to random noise: give several developers the same job and developer effort seems to vary even more than SLOC). Also any specific anecdotes about changed requirements, defects discovered by QuickCheck can also be useful. They are not objective evidence, but people listen to stories more readily than statistics.
Of course if you can reveal the client's name that would also be very useful, for the same reason. But I understand that may not be possible.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
