I can't be sure, but I think that the "CNA" studies you are referring to
might be the following paper:
Masters, Michael W. 1996. "Programming Languages and Life-Cycle Cost."
Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren VA. March 18.
I used to have a copy of Mike Masters report, but can't find it in my
files. I found this site in, of all places, the bibliography of the NRC
Mike Masters is a good guy. If his isn't the "CNA study" you are looking
for, he may be able to find you a direct reference.
The only e-mail address I have for Mike is [log in to unmask]
But this is two years old and I don't know if it is still correct. I don't
have a phone number for him.
At 05:04 PM 1/12/99 , Wesley Groleau wrote:
>This is a second- or third-hand report of one or more studies by the
>Center for Naval Analysis (CNA). I do not know how these studies were
>done nor how to get closer to the source.
>Most of the message was related to specific DoD contracts.
>I have omitted these sections and "censored" mention of one program in
>b. CNA conducted an analysis of Ada versus C++. CNA stated that it would
>a wash. There was no advantage for either programming lanugage. xxxxxxx
>stated that there could not be a pure Ada or C++ environment due to COE
>migration. COE software modules that are provided by DISA support Ada
>(Alerts module), JAVA, C, and C++. SPARWARS stated that there was a lack
>software tools to support Ada 95 programming and development. CNA disputed
>c. CNA conducted an analysis of UNIX versus WIN NT. CNA seem to favor UNIX
>based on the reliability of the memory management.