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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3141f12a6a7d0751 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-09 13:28:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Ada success story in IEEE Software Date: 9 Jan 2002 15:28:50 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <7t3kzsn2L3In@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <3c3aea7b$1@pull.gecm.com> <6fD_7.8548$cD4.15360@www.newsranger.com> <3C3CB31E.BC6FDBED@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1010611732 31403 192.135.80.34 (9 Jan 2002 21:28:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18711 Date: 2002-01-09T15:28:50-06:00 List-Id: In article <3C3CB31E.BC6FDBED@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter writes: > Ted Dennison wrote: >> >> In article <3c3aea7b$1@pull.gecm.com>, Martin Dowie says... >> > >> >"Dale Stanbrough" wrote in message >> >news:dstanbro-FFA1D2.23113708012002@mec2.bigpond.net.au... >> >> Rod Chapman wrote: >> >> >> >> > factor in the success of the project. The final system achieved >> >> > 0.04 defects per kloc (that's 4 defects in 100,000 lines of code) post- >> >> > delivery, which compares favourably with industry norms. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I follow this. If this result is the industry norm, >> .. >> >He said it "compares favourably with industry norms" not "matches the >> >industry norms" >> >> I suspect that may have been a bit of that famous British understatement too. I >> think our last (non safety-critical) Ada project would have had a defect count >> orders of magnitude higher than that. > > I recall seeing the "industry norm" given as 1 defect per kloc. I suppose it depends on what industry. I have seen numbers of 10 and 5 defects per kloc on brand new code and modification of code, not specific to Ada.