LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  December 1998

TEAM-ADA December 1998

Subject:

Re: Language Efficiency

From:

"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.

Date:

Fri, 18 Dec 1998 07:23:38 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (136 lines)

To: Alan & Carmel Brain et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.

There are two types of studies prospective and retrospective. Prospective
studies are really definitive. Prospective studies are expensive; however,
they can be definitive. Retrospective studies almost always are less useful.
However, since they often only consist of data mining, they can be much less
expensive and more comprehensive, include more data. Below, I will explain
how the "Year 2000 Bug" should provide very good data for a retrospective
study.

Prospective Studies:

The actual problem is that the subject will know which language is being
used. In medical studies, the patients and doctors do not know what is in
the pill or injection. There has been some work with undergraduates to
justify the choice of a language for introductory courses. However, the
significance of this could be questioned as to its relevancy to the work of
mature software engineers. In the past, the US Department of Defense used to
select planes by having two or more competitors build flying prototypes. It
actually would pay to do this when comparing languages. However, one must
then be very careful about defining what the results mean. Results would
include total labor, defects, and maintenance costs. These will be convolved
with the abilities of the software engineers unless one has two projects and
has the teams switch languages. If the users chose the language, Ada would
almost always win because of the Ada culture. Parenthetically, I have always
argued that Ada was an excellent personnel management tool. The hackers see
her and quit!

One interesting test would involve finding a group of programmers who knew a
language, such as FORTRAN, COBOL, or BASIC but who had no experience with
both C and Pascal nor any of their descendants. A test of their capacity to
decipher programs in C++ or Java versus Ada would be most informative.

Another measure would be to define a software project and make it a contest
for real money and fame. This should attract the best in the field. Then one
could employ metrics, such as errors per 1,000 lines of code, statements per
function point or feature point, and/or my simple minded efficiency formula:

Efficiency = Output/Input;

Lines of source code is by itself a useless metric for OO languages with
inheritance. I believe that the ratio of lines of code written to the linked
code (output) is what counts.

Linked Lines of Source code or text equals the total number of semicolons
which would be actually used in the linked Executable if

1) all loop structures remained intact (no unrolling);

2) all instantiations of generics are treated as the equivalent of the
source text which would have been created without the use of the generic;

3) all instances of inherited subprograms of tagged types are treated as the
equivalent of the source text which would have been created without the use
of the tagged type.

Retrospective Studies:

Retrospectives studies are possible. There one determines with appropriately
matched cases what the costs were. It should be emphasized that with a
significant number of cases, something between 10 and 100, the criteria can
be reasonably broad. A universe of 100 males between the ages of 40 and 60
years is very often sufficient when there is a significant effect. However,
this data should NOT be used for females or males of other age ranges. They
would require another study. I might note that if one found a real benefit
for the males of a limited age range, that would provide enough data to make
it worthwhile to test on another group or in the case of a lethal disease
where nothing worked to have a reasonable probability of obtaining a
humanitarian exemption from the US FDA.

The US DoD should have enough data from C++, C, and Ada to permit a useful
study. In fact, the Year 2000 Bug" is perfect for this. There should be data
on the cost by language per project of detecting and eliminating these
design errors. I must now EMPHASIZE that a simple minded study will probably
produce incorrect data. Cases where the cost was not significant will NOT be
reported!!! Thus, there may be very significant under reporting for Ada.

Happy Holidays!
Yours, Bob Leif

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alan E & Carmel J Brain
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 11:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Language Efficiency was RE: Choose Ada flyer
>
>
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > To: Wesley Groleau et al.
> > From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
> >
> > Subject: Language Efficiency
>
> > I might add a comment, which I hope does not hurt anyone's
> feelings. Having
> > spent almost 40 years doing science, analytical cytology and cancer
> > research, I am totally horrified at the level of many computer science
> > studies. Most of what I read would be totally unacceptable in
> the scientific
> > literature.
>
> Hallelujah, Brother! I couldn't agree more.
>
> OK, so what metrics should we use? How do we design the experiment? I
> would have thought the (US) DOD for one would be fascinated by getting
> some hard date vis-a-vis comparative language capabilities. The FP
> database in Melbourne seems to show that the single biggest contrivuting
> factor to productivity is language.
>
> I've tried to get the ball rolling several times here (I have a mere
> BSc, and such a topic would be a LOVERLY PhD thesis..) but no joy. Yet
> it's one of those dream areas, where there's b***** all in the way of
> literature, most of it is very soft, yet there's a potential huge
> practical economic benefit in the short term, ie Funding SHOULD be easy
> to get.
>
> Experimental design is another matter.
>
> It should also either a) Prove what we knew all along or b) Shake our
> complacency and kill some long-cherished beliefs. Probably a bit of
> both. Might be an idea to get some  Adaphobes along to review things
> too, as otherwise we may lose objectivity (and hence usefulness).
>
> Over to you. Can we do something about this?
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
> | Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
> | Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
>  [log in to unmask]  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo
>                     By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager