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=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.object:2762 comp.lang.ada:4991 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac,att!cbnewsl!arny From: arny@cbnewsl.att.com (arny.b.engelson) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Keywords: Looking for a few lazy men Message-ID: <1991Mar18.181350.16856@cbnewsl.att.com> Date: 18 Mar 91 18:13:50 GMT References: <1991Mar15.224626.27077@aero.org> <1991Mar16.000624.2513@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1991Mar16.205228.4268@grebyn.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories List-Id: In article <1991Mar16.205228.4268@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > "The GSA Board of Contract appeals issued a ruling last month that > could effect how the military evaluates the cost effectiveness of Ada > software. > > "The board upheld a decision by the Air Force to award a contract to > a high-priced bidder based on a measure of productivity that equals > three lines of Ada code per programmer per day. > > "A lower priced bidder, and others in the Ada community, said this > standard is much too low. The protester in the case, DynaLantic > Corp, offered an average of ten lines of code per day per > programmer. > > "Three lines of code per day is absurd [as if ten wasn't], said > Ralph Crafts, editor of a newsletter on Ada, and an expert > witness for the protester..... > >Whether any realistic combination of events exists which could reduce >Pascal, C, or C++ programmers to this level of productivity is anybody's >guess; my own opinion is that most C programmers would require a bullet >through the brain to be brought to such a level. > >Ted Holden You don't quote prices for many large Air Force proposals, do you Ted? A quoted productivity rate of 10 lines per staff day for the entire development cycle is not unusual, REGARDLESS OF THE LANGUAGE. The apparently dismal productivity is caused by time taken to do the many other things required by the customer (Air Force), including preparing for and holding requirements, design, and test reviews, preparing the many documents required, etc. I have seen very similar productivity figures for C, Ada, and other languages in this type of job. The actual coding phase goes along merrily at 50 to 200 lines per day (depending on the programmer, and not including overtime :-) ). Too bad the Air Force won't simply take our word for it that the code works, and that it does everything they want it to, and that if it ever has to be changed, we'll all be around to make those changes for them. You really ought to look deeper into things before posting an inflammatory article based on a one column article in Federal Computer Week (or wherever). By the way, you (and everyone else) should go read the Ada 9X Mapping Document and the Mapping Rationale Document, since the availability of that language spells the downfall of C/C++ :-). Wait, it's a joke, stop the language war, it's a joke. But the documents ARE very interesting reading. -- Arny Engelson att!wayback!arny (arny@wayback.att.com)