Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:43:22 +0100
This strikes me as patently false, along with your statement that C
obviously costs less to develop than Ada. I would say in my experience, C
costs less up to a couple hundred lines of code. Beyond this, I have found
myself far more productive in Ada than I ever was/would have been in C.
I suppose it is probable that I had executables far sooner in C, but I
certainly have *working* ones far sooner in Ada.
From: Roger Racine [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Anti-Ada Arguments
There is a higher cost-overrun risk using Ada than using C, C++ or Java,
due to the extra work done to generate the Ada code. A good development
process will help lower the risk, but not get rid of it.