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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!rsd From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A farewell to Ada Message-ID: <4948@ae.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 15 Nov 89 18:55:33 GMT References: <14033@grebyn.com> Reply-To: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA List-Id: Painful as it was, I read your whole article, Ted. When you say (in article <14033@grebyn.com>, Ted Holden): > Does Ada work any better for large scale systems? Another article >in the same Journal of Electronics Defense issue describing use of Ada on >the 1,246,000 line Army AFATDS system claims that: > > "Ninety percent of the software requirements were met with no major > software problems." > >as if this were good. The man is claiming that he had major language- >related problems with 124,600 lines of code out of 1,246,000. how can you expect to be taken seriously? Do you really believe the math and premises behind your statement? Wow! Rich -- We use kill ratios to measure how the war is going. We use SLOC ratios to measure how our software is coming. (Idea from Gary Seath) rsd@sei.cmu.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------