The Zeigler report at http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html looks like good data. Why was it not 'adequate'? Was conflicting data presented? Is it analogous to smoking and lung cancer in that some folks will never consider it adequate in their lifetimes? Or perhaps 'cheaper and less buggy' isn't really important? Is part of the argument for COTS that 1/N of the cost of a system that's very expensive is still less than 1/n of a cheaper system if N >> n? What about the cost to each customer (as opposed to the cost to the vendor) of more bugs? Are we Ada-philes simply mistaken in our implicit belief that quality is cost-effective?