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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Carlisle, Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:43:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-To: Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "Carlisle, Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (19 lines)
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.

--Martin

-----Original Message-----
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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2