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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2702c1ed8be62863 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne) Subject: Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best* Date: 1998/12/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 420134283 References: <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch> <74hk55$6t5$1@remarQ.com> <74jhct$e2m$1@remarQ.com> <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com> Organization: Some, but limited Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-12-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <74jpk8$p8j$1@remarQ.com>, "Pat Rogers" wrote: > When answers included concrete facts you invoked aliens and > silliness rather than discuss the data. A killfile for the answers > you don't like seems a strange way to learn. I'd answer you, but I've killfiled you. Remember?!? ;-) I'm truly sorry about the attitude. Let me conclude this discussion as follows. 1) You haven't provided concrete facts. You identified studies on an obscure web page as "hard core" evidence of Ada's greater productivity. The Institute for Creation Reseach offers "hard core evidence" of Scientific Creationism too. Ever wonder why 95% of PhDs in biological sciences poo-poo these findings? Simple: these people aren't scientists; they're advocates POSING as scientists. When AFA produces a study showing that Ada's a better language, it's like Dow-Corning doing research on the safety of silicon breast implants. You'd be out of your mind to not take the data *cum grano salis*. 2) I've read many studies touting the productivity of Ada, and I have to say I think they're all a joke? Why? Think on your training as an engineer. To properly conduct a comparative study like this, you need to set up the experiment under tightly controlled environments. To conduct an Ada vs. C++ study, you need identical development environments, identical tools, and identical staff in order to proceed. Additionally, you need people who AREN'T advocates of one side over the other analyzing the data. Finally, you need to have ALL elements of the lifecycle identical. My belief: if Ada developers ACTUALLY DO beat the C++ers in all areas (quality, development time, etc.), it's less because of the source code and much more because of the system engineering involved. Most Ada organization (at least in the US) are government controlled in some way (go to a Lockheed-Martin CDR/PDR if you don't believe this), and the systems engineering is very tight. The Ada people tend to get better requirements that the C++ by virtue of their organizational domains, and the design is usually less brittle for the same reasons. My bottom line here: don't quote productivity studies and expect me to believe them. For all the reasons I've stated above, I think they're uncontrolled and uncontrollable AND I think the studies are aggressively skewed by advocates on whatever side. I've actually read an AFA study that stated up front that the study itself needs to taken with a grain of salt! Finally: my alien statement is valid for this reason: if you go into an alt.alien.XXX newsgroup and ask for proof, they send you to a web site. The only thing that proves is this: logical fallacies, 'specially those involving personal issues and prejudices, are alive and well. Respectfully, -- ? Rick Thorne ? "I'm quite illiterate, ? ? software engineer by day ? but I read a lot" ? ? harried father of two by night ? J. D. Salinger ? ? rick.thorne@lmco.com ? ? ? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/ ?