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: "Theodore E. Dennison" Subject: Re: Ada is 'better' than C because... Date: 1996/08/08 Message-ID: <3209DB76.41C67EA6@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172996177 references: <01bb7bf9$b89a1740$96ee6fcf@timhome2> <4tj43k$16r@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3205F296.41C6@wgs.estec.esa.nl> <320729F1.1ADC@lmtas.lmco.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington wrote: > > For a counter-example, see this study (which did evaluate error densities): > http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html ... > issue. In this study, the same project done in C and Ada had significantly lower > error densities in the C version Hmmm. I read the same study, but I thought the conclusion was the other way around; unless my math is bad again. (Lower "error density" ==> less errors, right?) The following was the heading on the conclusion - CONCLUSION: Development Costs of C Exceed Those of Ada -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |