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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.ecp.fr!news.muarf.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-a.proxad.net!nnrp3-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
From: Jean =?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois?= Martinez <darkquark99@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: F-22 ADA Programming
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <a510f410-56ea-46a6-9f3c-021a2389b936@googlegroups.com>
 <f4e05c1d-e52e-44f1-84e1-3814e526c469@googlegroups.com>
 <m2jvqm$qpc$2@dont-email.me>
 <e686d282-ce1b-4be0-8a89-213a61866264@googlegroups.com>
 <3d5997a0-fc19-4265-9ca4-89b004974829@googlegroups.com>
 <7deda1bb-58a3-44a9-9f0b-05696bf13854@googlegroups.com>
 <546874f3$0$2908$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
 <75f7bc0f-5a61-4ebc-9e9c-3f840737b315@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 17 Nov 2014 00:33:19 GMT
Message-ID: <5469424f$0$2377$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Nov 2014 01:33:19 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.225.39.24
X-Trace: 1416184399 news-2.free.fr 2377 82.225.39.24:36226
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190745
Date: 2014-11-17T01:33:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:26:50 -0800, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

>> > Because in a safety-critical project it is not the language alone
>> > that is responsible for the error-free outcome. The whole point of
>> > re-teaching the graduates is to move out of that "inherently
>> > error-prone" zone.
>> 
>> I remind you that well-known example of a teacher
> 
> John McCormick. The example is well-known, so I happen to know it. ;-)
> 

I never supposed you didn't know it.  :)  What I wanted was to bring your 
attention on the mathematical aspect of it: when you have two samples of 
size 25, one of them composed entirely of black balls and another one 
being 50% black balls and 50% white you can reject the hypothesis of 
Expected value being equal(since I don't know if English is your 
mathematical language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value) and 
the difference between the empirical means being due to bad luck with the 
sampling

So Phase2_Student + Ada is blowing out of the water Phase1_Student + C 
that despite the fact I "cheated" (eg discarding the 90% success rates of 
following years) in order to favor the C side.  So since we have no 
reason to believe Phase2_Students are _that_ superior to the Phase_1 one, 
we can "simplify the equation by removing the student factor => The 
language made a difference.

I insist this is not one student (or team) getting a better result so we 
could argue he is just brighter.  It is a sample of at least 25 vs 
another sample of at least 25.  And we didn't pit students at a 
university attracting the best of  the best of the best in the world 
against one with average or mediocre students.  It 
was same university getting students of roughly same quality from one 
year to the other.

---

Jean François Martinez