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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:3035 comp.lang.ada:3378 comp.lang.c:26526 Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!wtwolfe From: wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Subject: Productivity and error rates for Ada projects Message-ID: <8221@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 3 Mar 90 18:01:35 GMT Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC List-Id: From the November 1988 issue of IEEE Software, page 89 ("Large Ada Projects Show Productivity Gains"): Productivity ranged from 550 to 704 lines per staff-month at the 1.2-million-line level -- a sharp contrast with the average productivity of the 1,500 systems in productivity consultant Lawrence Putnam's database: only 77 lines per staff-month. Reuseable software developed on the project was counted only once, and reuseable software not developed on the project was not counted at all. Excerpts from a recent NASA internal study were recently published in the September/October 1989 SIGAda Ada Letters (page 58): by the third Ada project, 42% of code was reused, productivity was 33.9 noncomment lines per staff-day (that's 746 lines per staff-month), and there were only 1.0 defects per thousand lines of code. The study recommended that NASA should adopt Ada as its standard programming language. Does anyone know of any empirical results regarding the level of productivity and defect rate associated with C-language projects? It would be interesting to compare them to the results cited above. Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu