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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Joe Wisniewski <wisniew@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'
Date: 2000/02/19
Message-ID: <88ma3c$p6a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 587326735
References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch>
 <t7u2ja5lpx.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <2000Feb15.143333.1@eisner>
 <t7r9ee5ihu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <2000Feb15.155800.1@eisner>
 <t7itzqcdw2.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <150220001931201946%emery@grebyn.com>
 <88hbpp$j4i$1@news.btv.ibm.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.91.146.35
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 19 14:41:48 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDwisniew
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; U)
Date: 2000-02-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <88hbpp$j4i$1@news.btv.ibm.com>,
  pontius@twonky.btv.MBI.com.invalid (Dale Pontius) wrote:
> In article <150220001931201946%emery@grebyn.com>,
>         David Emery <emery@grebyn.com> writes:
> ...
> > On a related note, around 1990 or so, MITRE did a study on
life-cycle
> > costs of Ada83 vs other languages.  At that point, we had many
> > large systems well into development, with few that had been deployed
> > and were in real maintenance.
> >
> > The result:  Ada maintenance costs were shown to be linear on KSLOC.
> > This is in stark opposition to Boehm and similar studies that showed
> > cost to maintain code was exponental on KSLOC.
>
> Now let's take these facts, and tie them back to the original topic
> of the thread. Supposedly, Win2k has about 35MLOC. I've heard numbers
> between 30 and 40 MLOC, pick one and let's not haggle. I'm also under
> the impression that about 2/3 of that is enhancement of the stable
> NT4 code base, and about 1/3 of that is new.
>
> Presumably there are bodies of knowledge that indicate defect rates
> on mature and new code.
>
> Apply that knowledge to what we know of Win2k, and what does the
> estimate come out at? Is 63000 defects a civil number for an estimated
> 24MLOC of old code and 12MLOC of new code? At this point, I'm not
> saying anything good or bad about Microsoft. I'm merely questioning
> the historical perspective on a body of code of this size.
>
> Dale Pontius
> NOT speaking for IBM
>

Also consider ..."
   Categorization of the "defects". If the 63K defects are
   accurate and account for EVERY possible "fix" that may or may
   not be a "defect" or even necessary such as a separate defect for
   every typo in the help file, ..., 63K may not be that big a deal,
   especially if that number includes enhancements, which are often
   included in normal defect tracking, just categorized differently.

   In fact one _could_ make the argument that this is a real step up
   wrt turning Windows releases into a real software engineering
   effort. That is, identify every possible thing wrong that has
   shown up in beta, not matter how trivial it may seem right now.

Joe


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.