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-Thread: a07f3367d7,20280f498071efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Software Quality in Science References: <1198a288-b013-45a8-907f-7fe227e6294e@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <4b720550$0$7624$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> From: Stephen Leake Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:34:25 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:EHKjjytCOngY8jkyIhYnrz12+48= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com X-Trace: 65ee74b72c448e197caa720884 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9084 Date: 2010-02-10T09:34:25-05:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > Robert A Duff wrote: >> Jerry 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