From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 6 Nov 92 18:24:44 GMT From: destroyer!lambda.msfc.nasa.gov!robichau@gumby.wisc.edu (Paul Robichaux) Subject: Re: Who uses Ada?? Message-ID: <1992Nov6.182444.28936@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> List-Id: In 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 **