From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:3088 comp.lang.ada:3396 comp.lang.c:26642 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!oliveb!orc!decwrl!megatest!djones From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Productivity and error rates for Ada projects Message-ID: <12236@goofy.megatest.UUCP> Date: 7 Mar 90 01:07:27 GMT References: <8221@hubcap.clemson.edu> Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca List-Id: >From article <8221@hubcap.clemson.edu>, by wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe): > > From the November 1988 issue of IEEE Software, page 89 ("Large > Ada Projects Show Productivity Gains"): Productivity ranged > from 550 to 704 lines per staff-month at the 1.2-million-line > level -- a sharp contrast with the average productivity of the > 1,500 systems in productivity consultant Lawrence Putnam's > database: only 77 lines per staff-month. Does this mean that if I program in C rather than Ada, I can get the job done with one nineth the expendature in lines of code? That would be an improvement, I'll say. Over the last year, programming in C, I've been turning it out at the rate of 1900 lines a month. If I could get that down to, say 200, that would be great! Or does it mean that if I program in Ada rather than C, I'll get nine times as much real work done? Sign me up. Nine production compilers in a year. I could make a few bucks at that rate. Or is it possibly an inherently meaningless statistic, made even more worthless by a complete lack of controls? Cut me some slack, Jack.