Re: Software Quality in Science

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> Jerry <lanceboyle@qwest.net> writes:
> 
>> Here is the link in the Guardian article to the original work:
>>
>> http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Texp_ICSE297.pdf

>> ...The
>> computational scientist should not use this as an argument in favour
>> of C++ or Ada in which they are mandated. A large number of new
>> failure modes result from this action, which lack of space prohibits
>> further discussion here.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
>> ...The net result of changing languages appears
>> to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same,
>> (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one
>> deficiency, it appears to add one of its own."
> 
> That assertion requires evidence, and I don't see it here!

Indeed, looking at some of the things that Les Hatton suggests
to be doing for a living, there might be an incentive not to
perform a comparative study of the effects of using statically
checked C (with Safer C (TM)) versus statically "checked" Ada
(Spark, or SofCheck Inspector (TM)). IOW, language choice does not
matter as long as you use our tools and participate in our training
courses.

His arguments still seem based on studies from the mid 1990s.
A study is something at least. Is there anything in the Tokeneer
data that could serve as a basis for a comparison?
What failure modes might Spark add?