Re: Productivity and error rates for Ada projects

[xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)]

In article <8221@hubcap.clemson.edu>, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe) writes...

>   Excerpts from a recent NASA internal study were recently
>   published in the September/October 1989 SIGAda Ada Letters 
>   (page 58): by the third Ada project, 42% of code was reused, 
>   productivity was 33.9 noncomment lines per staff-day (that's 
>   746 lines per staff-month), and there were only 1.0 defects per 
>   thousand lines of code.  The study recommended that NASA should
>   adopt Ada as its standard programming language. 
> 

I believe that at the Software Engineering Symposium at Goddard last year 
there was a report on the reponse of the various NASA Centers on this issue.
There was support from most centers that ADA should be adopted but the primary
real time shops wanted both C and ADA adopted.  If I can find my notes from
that conference I can get more info (as in why the various centers diagreed).

I recall that the majority of the centers, while in general support ADA, wanted
to evaluate the impact of the adoption of ADA before doing so.

Nigel Tzeng
xrtnt@csdr.gsfc.nasa.gov

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Nifty Syings...This space unintentionally left Blank...