Fri, 8 Nov 1996 09:53:41 -0500
Evidence derived from experimental data is much more defendable than
even *expert* opinion, number of ads in a local newspaper, or surveys
which contain ambiguous definitions.
This forum is about "marketing" Ada. Mandates and waiver processes and
even the establishment of in-vogue architecture review boards does not
ensure success nor does it ensure we (DoD) will be doing what's right.
What is right? best? prudent? Define the term and conduct an experiment
from which you can answer the question. Experiments used to be hot items
which school kids used to participate; some still do. However, today, we
seem to have moved away from this established means of seeking the truth,
or, stated another way, of using the tools of true science.
Yes, experiments can be costly. The acid test is how valuable is the
information it (the experiment) attempts to reveal?
------------------- cut here ---------
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> If an 'experiment' trying to compare a C and an Ada team resulted
> in the C team creating a new CASM (C Ada Subset Macro) language
> that was better than either C or Ada, then we'd surely like to
> hear about it. If it was better than C but worse than Ada (or
> the opposite) then it should prehaps replace whichever it beat,
> and if all three were in a dead heat then it's evidence of 'no
> difference' - at least for that application domain and set of
Yep, don't ask the question, unless you can live with the answer...sounds