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:
"Karl A. Nyberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:29:07 EDT
Reply-To:
"Karl A. Nyberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
From the Letter to the Editor, Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software
Engineering, October 1998:

        ...

        In an article aimed at metrics novices, it is very important to
        point out some of th eknown hazards of software metrics.  The fact
        that lines of code can't be used to measure economic p roductivity
        is definitely a known hazard that should be stressed.

        In a comparative study of 10 version of the same period using 10
        different programming languages (Ada 83, Ada95, C, C++, Objective C,
        PL/I, Assembler, CHILL, Pascal and Smalltalk), the lines of code
        metric failed to show either the highest productivity or best
        quality.  Overall the lowest cost and fewest defects were found in
        Smalltalk and Ada95, but the lines of code metric favored
        assembler.  Function points correctly identified Smalltalk and Ada95
        as being superior, but lines of code failed to do this.

        Capers Jones
        Software Productivity Reserach

OK, guys - spin it!

-- Karl --

ATOM RSS1 RSS2