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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Ada is 'better' than C because... Date: 1996/08/07 Message-ID: <3208A381.74B2@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172741738 references: <01bb7bf9$b89a1740$96ee6fcf@timhome2> <4tj43k$16r@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <320729F1.1ADC@lmtas.lmco.com> <6AUG199622582607@ewirb-wr> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: GAFFNEY.BRIAN wrote: > > In article <320729F1.1ADC@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington writes... > > http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html > .. > > In this study, the same project done in C and Ada had significantly > >lower error densities in the C version. > ^^^^^ ^ > I must have been reading a different article of the same name at the same site, > because I thought the result was just the opposite - C had _higher_ "error > densities" than Ada. Well, of course, it depends upon your definition of densities, and... Oh, never mind. Of course I meant the Ada version had a lower error density than the C version. People are just so picky... -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"