TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "J-P. Rosen" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:53:45 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: "J-P. Rosen" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (22 lines)
At 21:10 11/03/1997 +0100, Daniel Wengelin wrote:
>Fellow Teamers,
>
>early in the long debate on the Mandate and the recent developments, I seem
>to recall a comment that there is ample "hard scientific data" that the
>productivity using Ada is superior to that of using e.g. C.
>
>Having found nothing at the HBAP I would very much like to be pointed in
>the right direction. Not that scientific data will always do the trick, but
>at some point in the debate, it's necessary to take to the "hard" tools of
>argument ;-)
An old (maybe the first) such study is a paper called "Ada's impact : A
quantitative assessment", by Don Reifer. It appeared in 1987, as far as I
remember in the proceedings of a SIGAda conference in Washington DC.
The study is extremely accurate, and although a bit old, I heard that Reifer
later made new measures that simply confirmed his first findings.
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+
|   J-P. Rosen                       |    [log in to unmask]          |
|   ADALOG - 27 avenue de Verdun     |    Tel: +33 1 46 45 51 12           |
|   92170 Vanves - FRANCE            |    Fax: +33 1 46 45 52 49           |
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+

ATOM RSS1 RSS2