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_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-02 22:44:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? Date: 2 Jan 2003 22:44:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <20619edc.0301022244.2c16c563@posting.google.com> References: <20619edc.0301021029.33f6cc69@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.179.210.246 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041576240 6358 127.0.0.1 (3 Jan 2003 06:44:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jan 2003 06:44:00 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32477 Date: 2003-01-03T06:44:00+00:00 List-Id: David Emery wrote in message news:... > Mike Silva wrote: > > "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > > > >>Its a shame to see that many in the DoD arena are abandoning Ada because > >>"Everybody else is using C++". > > > > > > Seems like we should be seeing some results of the "DoD arena" rush to > > C++ by now. As the data comes in, we should either see that indeed > > C++ introduced problems and added costs that Ada would have avoided > > (my expectation), or that it didn't (in which case, time to re-examine > > assumptions). So, where are the C++ disaster coverups, and/or the > > shining successes? > > In 1990 MITRE did an internal study based on then available data > saying that the cost to maintain Ada was -LINEAR- on SLOC, not > exponental as Barry Boehm says. If you think about this, it's a > radical conclusion. And it wasn't done by the Ada people at MITRE, but > by our cost center's statisticians and cost analysts > > Back when Emmett Paige was ASD-C3I, he held a series of Ada Dual-Use > summits. At each, my position was: DoD has the data available to show > if Ada has the value we claim. Let's collect the data and let the facts > speak for themselves. > > Two results from this experience: > 1. DoD didn't want to gather and then hear facts > 2. Language decisions are generally not made on the > basis of -any facts- but rather management perception of > "acceptability", "training costs", etc. > > dave > (been there, done that, forgot my T-shirt) The only reason things *may* be different this time is that the amount, and cost of writing, software is so much greater today than 10-20 years ago that the risk of failure (or gross overrun) may be too great to ignore or sweep under the carpet anymore, or, inverting, the potential savings from using the right tools may be too great to ignore.... Mike