Re: Software Quality in Science

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
>> Jerry <lanceboyle@qwest.net> writes:
>> 
>>> ...The net result of changing languages appears
>>> to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same,
>>> (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one
>>> deficiency, it appears to add one of its own."
>> 
>> That assertion requires evidence, and I don't see it here!
>
> Indeed, looking at some of the things that Les Hatton suggests
> to be doing for a living, there might be an incentive not to
> perform a comparative study of the effects of using statically
> checked C (with Safer C (TM)) versus statically "checked" Ada
> (Spark, or SofCheck Inspector (TM)). IOW, language choice does not
> matter as long as you use our tools and participate in our training
> courses.

That has almost always been my reaction when I attend a software tools
sales pitch; "I don't need that tool, the Ada compiler already does
all of it".

Adacontrol and SPARK are tools I would consider using (they add real
value beyond the Ada compiler), but I've never been to a sales pitch
for those :).

> His arguments still seem based on studies from the mid 1990s.
> A study is something at least. Is there anything in the Tokeneer
> data that could serve as a basis for a comparison?
> What failure modes might Spark add?

Brain pain, for one. Understanding how to use Ada well is an order of
magnitude harder than understanding how to use C; I suspect SPARK is
another large increase (I've only looked into it lightly, never tried
to seriously use it).

I suspect this is one reason Ada has failed to take over the
programming space; you have to be a really good programmer to fully
benefit from it, and it's just not worth it for a mediocre programmer.

-- 
-- Stephe