Wes, 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 report. 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. Thanks, Brad 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 this >section. > > >b. CNA conducted an analysis of Ada versus C++. CNA stated that it would be >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 of >software tools to support Ada 95 programming and development. CNA disputed >that claim. >c. CNA conducted an analysis of UNIX versus WIN NT. CNA seem to favor UNIX >based on the reliability of the memory management.