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:

John Apa <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:59:10 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

You've made an excellent point. Congress should. The paperwork reduction
act requires the government to audit the amount of time spent filling
out peperwork, why not have similiar requirements for software
development?

Does anyone have any contacts in Washington that we could use to
initiate such discussion/legislation? The big push to make government
efficient has not really happened as was promised, maybe this is a
suitable topic for our representatives to begin discussing. Maybe not as
entertaining as the current scandal but certainly of practical worth to
the country as a whole.

It should be an achieveable task if we limit the discussion to just that
of improving the efficiency of software procurement and management.
There are many examples that draw attention to the problem. I think it'd
be a success if we were able to get a discussion started.

I'd encourage everyone to contact their representatives if it hasn't
already been done.

All great expeditions begin with a single step....

John T Apa                              [log in to unmask]
L-3 CSW                                 (801) 594-3382
640 North 2200 West PO Box 16850        Salt Lake City, UT. 84116-0850



>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Wednesday, December 30, 1998 8:36 AM
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: Language Efficiency
>
>To: Robert Eachus et al.
>From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
>
>I like your data. However, it is still anecdotal. It is possible to do a
>cross-over study. However, as we agree, it can not be blind.
>
>The bottom line is that the paucity of data clearly demonstrates that good
>manufacturing processes are NOT being followed in the software field. I
>suspect that by now must of us agree that the Ada mandate should have been
>replaced by the DoD being forced to keep decent data. If CMM can be applied
>to the contractors, why not force the Government agencies to employ ISO or
>some other reasonable standard for software acquisition. This standard
>should include obtaining and maintaining total cost and reliability data.
>
>Congress should require that DoD and other Government agencies analyze the
>results of their previous software practices and create a database for
>monitoring throughout their lifecycle all future software projects.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Robert I. Eachus
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 11:11 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Language Efficiency
>>
>>
>> At 04:49 PM 12/26/98 -0800, Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> >Fortunately, our universe is restricted to software development.
>> >Unfortunately, I do NOT believe that a true double blind
>> crossover study is
>> >even conceivable. This would require the same project being developed in
>> >both Ada an another language. However, I believe that it is impossible
>> >because there is no straight-forward way to organize an experiment where
>> >neither the monitor (teacher) nor the student (user) know which
>> programming
>> >language they are using.
>>
>>    Okay, I have to put in my own two cents as a statistician. ;-)  Neither
>> traditional single or double blind studies are possible because
>> in any case
>> the patient (programmer) knows what language he is writing in.  But it is
>> fairly easy to do a study where neither placebo or Hawthorne
>> effects occur.
>>  The important thing is not to have the same programmer, or programming
>> team writing the software in two languages--each sample has to
>> approach the
>> problem as new. Basically this has occured at several places, probably the
>> most conclusive was at SUNY Albany.
>>
>>    My "study of studies" synthesis of what I have seen is that Ada (83) is
>> about five times more productive from design through integration and test
>> than C or Fortran. But putting on my Operations Research hat instead, the
>> interesting--and totally obvious in hindsight--conclusion is one that I
>> have stated here many times.  The major difference is that in Ada, coding
>> is done means both that and that the software is very nearly complete.
>> (Testing remains, and usually some GUI tweaking.)  In other languages, it
>> is not unusual for 90% or more of the source lines to be changed after
>> "coding is done."  On one (Fortran 77) project I remember vividly because
>> we had the numbers, there were 560 KSLOC of changes to a (final)
>> 300+ KSLOC
>> project that was just over 200 KSLOC when "coding was done."   On
>> the other
>> hand, I worked one Ada program where there were 17 lines changed between
>> handover to integration and test and six months after fielding.  (And over
>> half of those changes were clarification of error messages or correcting
>> typos in same.)
>>
>>    I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it took a lot of getting used to
>> fifteen years ago.  We were converting some tools from Multics to
>> the DPS6,
>> and needed to translate them from PL/I to Ada.  Even though we built
>> several translation tools to help in the process, most of the "hand work"
>> time was spent dealing with cases, error or otherwise, that the PL/I
>> programmer hadn't considered.  Most of those changes were backfit into the
>> PL/I, and they became "just as good" as the Ada versions.  Our conclusion
>> was that, in other languages it can be up to ten times as
>> expensive to turn
>> out product quality code than a one-off kludge, but in Ada, the difference
>> is under 50%.
>>
>>                                         Robert I. Eachus
>>
>> with Standard_Disclaimer;
>> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
>>

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