From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:15:25 GMT
From: emery@mitre-bedford.arpa  (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Who uses Ada??
Message-ID: <EMERY.92Nov6111525@Dr_No.mitre.org>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>the estimated difference in lifecycle cost (i.e. the total delta over
>the estimated 30-year life of a particular system) was $45 million
>HIGHER if Ada was the development language?

I'd very much like to see a reference/citation for this, as it flies
in the face of both deeply held religious beliefs and also most of the
available data (e.g.  Reifer studies, AFATDS preliminary data, etc).

				dave p.s.  I've seen some people come
up with higher start-up costs for Ada.  (In part due to retraining,
learning the language, etc, and in part due to front-loading the life
cycle by spending more time doing design.)  It's possible that someone
took the delta from start-up costs, and applied it into his favorite
old-fashioned cost model to obtain linear cost increases.