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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-19 14:50:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: 19 Jul 2001 14:50:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5be89e2f.0107191350.570eeae8@posting.google.com> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <9j1uio$8br$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com> <9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com> <3B5607AC.150BA836@mediaone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.59.170.85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 995579455 9749 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2001 21:50:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2001 21:50:55 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10287 Date: 2001-07-19T21:50:55+00:00 List-Id: Thanks for the input. So Capers Jones isn't projecting huge producity gains by using Ada as opposed to C++. Interesting. Ed Falis wrote in message news:<3B5607AC.150BA836@mediaone.net>... > codesavvy wrote: > > > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an > > excellent language and may actually be better than C++. However, I > > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with > > Ada 95 as opposed to C++. I have asked if anyone knew of a study > > where the conclusion was that Ada 95 increased productivity and so far > > I've only been chastised. > > Not to attribute intentions to you, but generally any demand in newsgroups for studies in this kind of area is a clear > win for the challenger, because there has been so little done in that regard, due to expense. As a debating tactic, > it throws the onus on the person being challenged, as though only that person is making an assertion, which is usually > not the case. > > Meta-discussion aside, as far as I know, no such studies exist for Ada 95 vs C++. Are you aware of any regarding C++ > vs "language x"? For that matter, I can't really think of much along these lines anywhere, excepting the function > point comparisons (some hypothetical) that Capers Jones had/has somewhere on the web. Actually, I just looked it up > for you: http://www.spr.com/library/0langtbl.htm. Note that the Ada 95 figure is projected, and that C++ and Ada 95 > are listed with close enough numbers to be a wash using that projection. > > There is one fairly thorough study of Ada 83 vs C that was done by Steve Zeigler of Verdix before the company was > acquired by Rational. I believe that study is still available on the Rational website. Try > http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp > > The problem, of course, is that we don't really know whether it generalizes to a comparison of Ada 95 and C++ - the > most it can do is lead one to surmise. > > - Ed