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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1d52a75fd633fefc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-16 05:35:06 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!peer.news.opaltelecom.net!londen1-snf1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3A844255.24A4DBA3@lmco.com> <968vnc$5a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A8C6843.B46006D6@lmco.com> <96j1bo$723@news.kvaerner.com> Subject: Re: Ada to C++ translator? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.48.221.19 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 982330442 6207069 64.48.221.19 (Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:34:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:34:02 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:34:02 GMT Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5297 Date: 2001-02-16T13:34:02+00:00 List-Id: Don't expect C++ to have better productivity numbers than C? Seems like a statement that needs to be defended with data to me... IMO, this thread is one of the reasons why Ada is so hard to sell. There are so many claims that Ada is "obviously" better than all other options in all other circumstances that it makes me cringe. Don't get me wrong -- I love Ada -- but advocates hype it so hard that it sounds like used-car salesmen. We have built products in both C and Ada; our data doesn't show a *12-to-1* difference in debug times! "Tarjei T. Jensen" wrote in message news:96j1bo$723@news.kvaerner.com... : : Robert Brantley wrote > : >We are re-using code from a legacy system, and we have spent a lot of : >effort on binding this legacy Ada code to the RTOS we are using. As the : >work : >has progressed it has become increasing apparent how much work is involved : >in mating the Ada code to the RTOS and the RTOS's development tools. A : >great : >deal of complexity could be cut out if we move the application code to the : >RTOS : >native language or it's derivative C++. : : Perhaps the following table from : http://www.rtcgroup.com/cotsjournal/cots7800/cots7800p60.html might be of : interest when you discuss the costs of using Ada. BTW Don't expect better : numbers from C++. : : |language | Lines /| Errors / | Time / | Total / | : | | Error | 10,000 Lines | Error | 10,000 (hours)| : |---------+--------+--------------+---------+---------------| : | Ada | 270 | 37 | 20 min | 12.35 hours | : |---------+--------+--------------+---------+---------------| : | C | 80 | 125 | 240 min | 500 hours | : +-----------------------------------------------------------+ : : Remember time is subjective. You don't really know how much time you spend : unless you measure. : : : Greetings, : : : :