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: 115aec,1ed0256a033d0951
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2718f787c2b4b9b7,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com>
Subject: Re: Justifying Development tools
Date: 1999/02/15
Message-ID: <7aa99i$hdc$1@remarQ.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 444742997
References: <01be5860$b1b0a0c0$32f23ccf@LittleFoot>
 <36c85659.0@news.pacifier.com>
 <gwinn-1502991649500001@209-122-231-125.s125.tnt4.sbo.erols.com>
 <7aa64c$m32$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 919119986 Y6JRGRJUHDE25C640C usenet80.supernews.com
Organization: Software Arts & Sciences
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Donald Gillies wrote in message <7aa64c$m32$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>...
>>In article <36c85659.0@news.pacifier.com>, "Steve Doiel"
>><nospam_steved@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you're really interested in things like the cost of errors and
the cost
>>> after shipment,
>>> read the paper by Stephen F. Zeigler, Ph.D. comparing the cost of
Ada and C
>>> development
>>>
>>>
http://www.rational.com/sitewide/support/whitepapers/dynamic.jtmpl?doc
_key=337
>
>IMHO, this article is spam science.
>
>You don't run a retroactive experiment with 7 variables and then try
>to correct for each variable independently, using ad-hoc ideas.  A
>good experiment has a "design" with just one or two variables and all
>other things are held constant.
>
>A good experiment is designed using something called "statistics"
>which seems completely unfathomable to the average software
>engineering computer scientist.  In particular, without looking at
>confidence intervals and many indepedent trials (does this guy
>understand what is the meaning of "independent trials" ???), you are
>doing nothing but promoting heresay, and we have enough newspapermen
>in the country doing this already...


What experiment are you referring to?  My recollection is that the
author makes conclusions based upon historical data.