Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++

[Sahan Amarasekera <sahan_aDOG@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk>]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:24:41 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>
wrote:

>In article <3A664EC4.6F679BE0@acm.org>,
>  Marin David Condic <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I had a ten year study of error rates in embedded code for safety
>> critical systems. Moving to Ada reduced the error rates by a factor of
>> four. Same programmers. Same problem domain. Same sort of system
>> architecture. No way around it. Ada's compile time checking, strong
>
>That's interesting. Rational performed a similar study on their compiler
>codebase using data culled over 11 years of development, and found that
>their Ada code had 1/7th the defect rate of their C code and requied
>only half as many fixes per SLOC. 

Did they get any data on how Ada compared to C++ ??

----
Sahan Amarasekera

to email me, remove animal in email address:
sahan_aDOG@amarasekera.freeserve.co.uk



>Even compensating for differences in
>experience, training, function, and language expressivenes, the big gap
>was still there. Perhaps that's why many of Rational's heavy-hitters
>(including Grady Booch of UML fame) are big Ada proponents.
>
>Of course this study was for a large end-user application (a compiler
>and associated tools), not for a safety-critical system.
>
>For those interested, the full report is available at
>http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/337.jsp .