1. 8
  1.  

  2. 4

    This has to be the best, industrial study comparing programming languages that I’ve seen. They’re doing it on the same system. There’s details to assess what was difficult, what got fixed the most, and so on. Summary: the developers collectively had more C experience than Ada experience, many were using Ada for first time, the Ada developers had fewer defects with gap getting wider with experience, and the Ada features cost less. A clear win [in one project] for Ada.

    That conclusion also brings to mind the practice we’ve seen (eg at NASA) about using C over Ada so developer familiarity with C reduces risk. The idea was learning a new language with its gotcha’s will increase error rate in their project. It was a good hypothesis but was refuted in this particular project. Worth some studies to test it further.

    Cannot believe I missed this one when grabbing studies out of ADAIC. Got it out of @derek-jones references page. Thanks, Derek, for the paper!

    1. 2

      Great find indeed. What strikes me, when confronted with a paper like this, is the startling realization that, once people actually cared about this sort of stuff. Or in my case, remembering this was once a thing. I can’t imagine anyone in the current era mandating a particular lagauge/environment as a means to control cost of a software project. The eternal september of constantly chasing the new shiny, same old wheel, is really kind of depressing.