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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Michael Stark Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/12 Message-ID: <36C447BE.37DE@cs.umd.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 443646199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <79chc7$ko6@drn.newsguy.com> <36BC74B9.5A8@cs.umd.edu> <79nnti$fos@abyss.West.Sun.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.umd.edu X-Trace: cronkite.cs.umd.edu 918833086 11786 128.8.126.43 (12 Feb 1999 15:24:46 GMT) Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Feb 1999 15:24:46 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java Date: 1999-02-12T15:24:46+00:00 List-Id: Stanley Friesen [Contractor] wrote: > > In article <36BC74B9.5A8@cs.umd.edu>, Michael Stark wrote: > >Stephen Leake wrote: > >SEL on what they thought the future held, but did not consult with > >technical people > >advocating Ada (like me) and I presume the same held for the C++ > >zealots. I think > >he thought that neither group of zealots would add anything new to the > >decision making > >process. The drawback was that he had some misconceptions (severe > >underestimates) on > >how much it would cost to convert existing Ada software to C++. > > > Eh!?!? Convert existing software??? Yes indeed! Our manager, for reasons only he knows, wanted to have everyone using a single language. This is what is called a "business decision" > > I would hope even most "C++ zealots" would admit how expensive this > is likely to be. I know enough of both languages to know how much > trouble this is likely to cause. The catch is that for our Ada code we had a code generator that created about 80% of the lines of code. The basic error was assuming that this would get rid of 80% of the cost, but since code writing is only 15 to 20 per cent of the effort at best, the savings was much lower. To be fair we did have reuse of design and test cases, so there would be some savings beyond code, but nothing like 80%. Unfortunately, I discovered this misconception well after the decision was made. As you might have guessed, the conversion of existing code never happened for lack of resources, so the C++ edict only applied to new code, and was later overtaken by (Java) events. Mike -- Michael Stark Goddard Research & Study Fellow University of Maryland, College Park e-mail: mstark@cs.umd.edu phone: (301) 405-2721 "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -- Martin Luther King, Letter From Birmingham City Jail