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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2702c1ed8be62863 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Pat Rogers" Subject: Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* Date: 1998/12/08 Message-ID: <74k1on$l4u$1@remarQ.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 420163066 References: <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch> <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com> <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com> <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com X-Trace: 913148503 Y6JRGRJUHDE90C640C usenet58.supernews.com Organization: Software Arts & Sciences Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-12-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Rick Thorne wrote in message ... >In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" > wrote: > >> When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and >> silliness rather than discuss the data. A killfile for the answers >> you don't like seems a strange way to learn. > >I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you. Remember?!? > >;-) I was wondering where it would go. :-) >I'm truly sorry about the attitude. Let me conclude this discussion as follows. I apologize for allowing myself to be annoyed. Life's too short for acrimony. >1) You haven't provided concrete facts. You identified studies on an >obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. The sponsor of the web page isn't the issue. I said "hard data" because the studies contain data rather than opinion. If guilt by location is used, why have the Web? Why shouldn't an advocacy page shout out the news? Considering the source is of course important, especially when *opinions* are being offered. But in this case the source is not the advocacy group, but rather, in most of the studies cited, external non-governmental entities. That is especially the case for the Zeigler Ada/C productity results. >2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to >say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an >engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to >set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct >an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, >identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, >you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing >the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle >identical. >My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to >believe them. For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're >uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND I think the studies are aggressively >skewed by advocates on whatever side. I've actually read an AFA study >that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of >salt! That argument can probably be made for one of the studies I cited, but (IMHO) not both. That is why I wished you had taken a look at the Ada/C paper by Steve Zeigler of Rational (when they were Verdix). It fits your requirements rather well, as the paper indicates: not Ada advocates (they were die-hard C programmers), whole lifecycle, long term, etc. Why not have a look rather than dismiss it out-of-hand? If you find factual fault with it, great -- that would help everybody move forward. >Respectfully, Returned in kind, --- Pat Rogers Training & Development in: http://www.classwide.com Deadline Schedulability Analysis progers@acm.org Software Fault Tolerance (281)648-3165 Real-Time/OO Languages