Re: C/C++ cheaper than Ada?? how?

[vonhend@ibm.net]

In <6nubua$ocj@drn.newsguy.com>, nabbasi@earthlink.net writes:
>
>what do you think they mean by saying C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada? in 
>what sense? if they measure the time one spends fixing C/C++ bugs that
>an Ada compile finds at compile time, they'll find Ada much cheaper.
>
Generally, when they say C/C++ is "cheaper" than Ada, the DoD is considering
only 2 factors:  the cost of licenses for the compilers, and the cost of
software engineers/programmers with sufficient skill with (read "knowledge of"
for "skill with") the language.  In general, on the kinds of computer systems
in wide use by DoD (VAX, Sun SPARCs, HPs, IBMs--but not PCs) Ada compilers
require _expensive_ licenses.  On the other hand, a C and/or C++ compiler
is often bundled (for no extra charge) with the operating system.

As for programmers, the colleges, universities, and trade schools are turning
out C++ programmers by the thousands.  Ada programmers are comparatively
rare.  In this country (USA), many hiring managers have the erroneous impression
that Ada is unsuited to business programming, but C++ is excellent for it.  As
a result, the educational centers are pushed toward ... well, just look in the
newspaper at the classified section.

It is emphatically not cheaper to build a sizeable application (anything over
100,000 lines of code) in C++.  Even if you take fresh from college C programmers,
train them in Ada programming and the use of Ada-specific software development
tools, buy new hardware and software, and do all the documentation required
by MIL-STD 2167A, it still costs much less to develop the program in C++.

The above statement is based not only on my experience (nearly 20 years in
major aerospace corporations) but on those of colleagues who have managed
a variety of large and small software projects for said aerospace corporations.

Mark Von Hendy, Sr. Scientific Programmer/Analyst
Lockheed Martin Technical Operations 


>interesting in that they say "cheaper" then follow that by "engineering
>approach". 
>
>Nasser
>
>--
>GOVERNMENT NEWS 
>
>GCN June 22, 1998 
>
>http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A1=ind9806&L=team-ada#5
>
>"Defense is increasingly turning to cheaper programming languages 
>such as C and C++ to program its systems. DOD is
>encouraging systems programmers to use an engineering approach 
>when selecting a software language, based on a number
>of factors including lifecycle costs, risks and interoperability.
>
>"DOD policy now places all programming languages on equal footing, where
>capability to provide the best support to the
>mission requirement will drive the solution selected, not a one-size-fits-all
>mandate," Valletta said. "