Re: Who uses Ada??

[destroyer!lambda.msfc.nasa.gov!robichau@gumby.wisc.edu (Paul Robichaux)]

In <EMERY.92Nov6111557@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) wri
tes:

>>the estimated difference in lifecycle cost (i.e. the total delta over
>>the estimated 30-year life of a particular system) was $45 million
>>HIGHER if Ada was the development language?

>I'd very much like to see a reference/citation for this, as it flies
>in the face of both deeply held religious beliefs and also most of the
>available data (e.g.  Reifer studies, AFATDS preliminary data, etc).

The prediction was for a somewhat higher startup cost (including
retraining, buying expensive Ada compilers (as though there were any
other kind), and so on), and I suspect what happened is what you
wrote: the higher startup cost was iterated over the program lifetime.

Of course, I'm sure there are/were other political, and possibly
financial, reasons for not using Ada on this particular project. None
of the ones I've heard make any more sense than the $45 million delta.

-Paul
 employed by, but not speaking for, New Technology, Inc.
 not _even_ employed by NASA
-- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG              | May explode if disposed of improperly.
Mission Software Development Div.   | Printed on recycled phosphors.
New Technology, Inc.		    | ** PGP 2.0 key available on request **