Re: Ada scandal makes front page of Wash. Post business section

[sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)]

In article <C3sFnI.6ws@hawk.cs.ukans.edu> billk@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Bill Kinners
ley) writes:
>In article <EMERY.93Mar12101548@dr_no.mitre.org> emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David 
Emery) writes:
>: The morale of the story is that bad programmers can screw up using any
>: language.  Ada just makes this more visible.
>: 
>It seems to me that the easiest way to refute this well-publicized example
>is by giving a counterexample.  Is there a project that you can point to 
>
>  a) Of comparable size, complexity and importance
>  b) Ada was used
>  c) The programmers were happy
>  d) The customers were happy
>  e) Modifications were easily made
>  f) The project came in on time

     I'm sure that this won't satisfy you, particularly since I can't
verify your requirement a.

     A few weeks ago I was on a pro-Ada panel with Bruce Krell of Hughes.
Bruce is a software project manager whose group works 40% in Ada and 60%
in <other language>.  He says (paraphrase) that, all other things being
equal, he would prefer to use Ada rather than <other language>.  The rea-
son?  "Projects in Ada come in on time; projects in <other language>
don't."  Although he didn't specifically address your points c, d, or e,
the implication was that more than just the schedule was satisfied.

     In case you're wondering why he does 60% of his work in <other lan-
gauge>, he says that, among other things, he often has to work in environ-
ments that don't have an Ada compiler.  That's a different issue, and one
that's often been discussed in this newsgroup.

				Charlie