TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:24:52 -0500
In-Reply-To:
X-To:
Reply-To:
"Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
   [log in to unmask] said:

 >   If one language is better than another by x%, then presumably we
 > could begin saving x% of the total software budget, each year for
 > the foreseeable future, by switching to that language.  Just 1% of
 > just $10**9/yr * 10 years = $100 million dollars.  Surely, that
 > would fund even an expensive set of experiments or data gathering.

    Hmmm.  For $100 million dollars, I can probably do that
experiment.  But for $10 million I can substantially improve the
software development process in the "weaker" langauge, and the
stronger one.

    In fact many years ago I was involved in such a project at
Honeywell, studying development in Ada, C, or Pascal vs. assembly
language.  Total cost was in the millions, for a total of six data
points.  But the most important result was that one of the C teams
wrote code that could be converted to Ada with a few emacs macros.
They could also do the reverse conversion.  This meant that their code
used a subset of Ada (and/or C) functionality, but gained the
advantages of strong type checking, etc.  How do you evaluate that
data point?  Push the money and/or the project size up, and you will
get evem more of the same effect.


                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

ATOM RSS1 RSS2