TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:00:56 -0800
Reply-To: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (51 lines)
To: Wesley Groleau et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.

Subject: Language Efficiency

If you look at Jones' data, it becomes obvious that we should use either
MathCAD OR Excel. My report on commercializing Ada comes to the conclusion,
that Jones' has once again proven that domain specific libraries and tools
increase programming efficiency. If you wish a preprint, I will send you the
.PDF file. This preprint will be posted to an appropriate Web page (CAUWG).

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. To this day, the DoD does not know the comparable costs of using
programming languages. Ada does NOT need a mandate; she needs hard data! I
have not seen any data proving that the CMU Capability Maturity Model levels
have anything to do with quality or cost. Admittedly the level of an
organization appears to be correlated with their capacity to estimate cost
and delivery time. However, usability and maintainability are also very

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of W. Wesley Groleau x4923
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 12:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Choose Ada flyer
> >    When you need software On Time and Under Budget
> >                      Choose Ada
> >
> > Programmer productivity in Ada is at least as high as
> > other OOP languages such as C++. You get more Function Points
> > per Dollar, less Re-Testing, Higher Reusability.
> > Robust, Industrial-strength Compilers are cheap (some are
> > Copyleft Free) and you don't need a million expensive tools
> > for bounds checking - the compiler does that for you
> I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information, but Capers Jones and
> Software Productivity Research believe that Eiffel and perl will have
> higher productivity than Ada.
> They put Ada at 10-20 function points per staff-month
> and perl or Eiffel at 16-23.
>  -  Capers Jones' data  -  a discussion of that data