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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: tottinge@oma.com (Tim Ottinger) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32ed60cf.41841439@news.dave-world.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212660849 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <32E4FC5B.242C@watson.ibm.com> <32E6862D.608B@parcplace.com> <32E788D4.4B91@watson.ibm.com> <32E8EB48.2C0C@parcplace.com> <32ED2DD3.76B4@watson.ibm.com> organization: Object Mentor Associates reply-to: tottinge@oma.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:36:03 -0500, "Norman H. Cohen" wrote: >No, I've such comparisons between Ada and C/C++ (see, for example >http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html, >which shows the same programmers developing Ada code and C code, and >producing the average Ada line for 60% of the cost of an average C line, >with only 1/6 as many defects in the delivered code), but not between >Ada and Smalltalk. I would certainly be interested in such >comparisons. If there are any Smalltalk versus C comparisons, it would >be interesting to observe whether the same factors are achieved (with >the caveat that this is not as controlled an experiment as a direct >comparison of Ada and Smalltalk code written by the same programmers). Just a note on per-line measurements across languages: Don't buy it. I saw one where it "proved" that COBOL or ASSEMBLY were the better quality languages to use and that it was unjustifiable to use Ada and C programmers, who may cost $100s per line of code. The trick was that the errors and cost *per*line*of*code* was lower for assembly and for cobol. The reason? They took far more lines of code to do the same job. C takes very few lines of code to do most low-level functions. As a result, it screws up the metrics horribly. Ada is also cursed with some fair economy. I think C++ rather varies between being more and being less concise than C depending on what you're looking at. I don't know how to even compare these fairly similar languages in terms of 'per line' fairly. I think with Java we'll find the same. I'm not sure how to measure Smalltalk, or even what to measure it against. I'm fairly well convinced that "per class" and "per line" and even "per project" aren't fair. Probably neither is anything else. If we had a fair way to compare languages, these kinds of studies would be very useful. But even if it were, it surely would do little good to spend the time and mental cpu cycles to try to convince people that what they do for a living is stupid and wrong. Especially when it's neither immoral nor illegal, and quite profitable. ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Ottinger | Object Mentor Inc. | OOA/D, C++, more.. tottinge@oma.com | http://www.oma.com | Training/Consulting ------------------------------------------------------------- "... remember, there are ways of succeeding that we would not personally have chosen. " - Bjarne Stroustrup -------------------------------------------------------------