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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 12 Mar 93 22:42:45 GMT From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) Subject: Re: Ada scandal makes front page of Wash. Post business section Message-ID: <1993Mar12.224245.1206@nosc.mil> List-Id: In article billk@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Bill Kinners ley) writes: >In article 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 . He says (paraphrase) that, all other things being equal, he would prefer to use Ada rather than . The rea- son? "Projects in Ada come in on time; projects in 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 , 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