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: 103376,345a8b767542016e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-17 14:03:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <3pm69u85j4h7efndahkean6trom5utk21m@4ax.com> <00t69uso35hmunf5mpnfn37ggd9q59tctu@4ax.com> <3C94EF0F.53049AA@adaworks.com> <0c8l8.12462$K43.3172093163@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.177.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1016402572 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:02:52 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:02:52 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_@SJGTZYQBQXYQ[OD]_HBWB]^PCPDLXUNNHXIJYWZUYICD^RAQBKZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON[ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNTCIRPIJH[@RQKBXLRZ@CD^HKANYVW@RLGEZEJN@\_WZJBNZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q[GPC_A@CARQVXDSDA^M]@DRVUM@RBM Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:02:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21381 Date: 2002-03-17T22:02:52+00:00 List-Id: Sorry to follow up to my own post... > > So, where are the metrics? > > The "Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost" study shows metric data strongly > in favor of Ada over C, and of course the "Zeigler Paper" does as well. > > The same issue of Crosstalk has an article by Peter Amey entitled "Correctness > by Construction: Better Can Also Be Cheaper". On page 25 in that article, he > quotes a study in which Ada only had 10 percent the residual errors on code > written in C. Besides showing that in practice it does indeed matter what > language one uses, it also shows the cost advantage of Ada over C for that > domain. An October 1998 letter to the editor of Crosstalk from Capers Jones is also intersting in the context of Don's article: "Software Metrics Hazards Elizabeth Starrett's article, "Measurement 101," Crosstalk, August 1998, was interesting and well written, but it left out a critical point. Metrics based on "source lines of code" move backward when comparing software applications written in different programming languages. The version in the low-level language will look better than the version in the high-level language. In an article aimed at metrics novices, it is very important to point out some of the known hazards of software metrics. The fact that lines of code can't be used to measure economic productivity is definitely a known hazard that should be stressed. In a comparative study of 10 versions of the same period using 10 different programming languages (Ada 83, Ada95, C, C++, Objective C, PL/I, Assembler, CHILL, Pascal, and Smalltalk), the lines of code metric failed to show either the highest productivity or best quality. Overall, the lowest cost and fewest defects were found in Smalltalk and Ada95, but the lines of code metric favored assembler. Function points correctly identified Smalltalk and Ada95 as being superior, but lines of code failed to do this. Capers Jones Software Productivity Research " > > Has anyone collected them in one place? > > I wonder about the ARA site... Definitely has some material: http://www.adaic.org/whyada/index.html could use more.