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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Terry J. Westley" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:18:11 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
We developed and maintain a real-time, distributed electronic
warfare simulation.  Approximately 80% of it is Ada; the rest
is C, Tcl/Tk, SQL, and FORTRAN.

It has been recently suggested that, rather than converting
to Ada 95 (well, really, it's converting from VADS to GNAT
or Rational Apex), we spend the same money to investigate
converting to C++.

In searching for "Ada advocacy" stuff, I ran across an AJPO
sponsored "Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost" study
This study mentions the IMOM Ada redesign.  Unfortunately,
IMOM has since been converted to C++ and is being used as
a rationale why our system should be converted!

Is anyone familiar with this study and know whether it has
been updated to reflect this latest rewrite of IMOM?  For
example, what are the defects per KSLOC rate for the C++
versus the previous FORTRAN and Ada versions?

Terry J. Westley, Principal Engineer
Veridian Engineering, Calspan Operations
P.O. Box 400, Buffalo, NY 14225
[log in to unmask]