Is there any scientific evidence that indicates Ada is more productive and/or safer than other languages?
Measurement of productivity and defects in any software realm gets to be highly problematic. This is especially true if one wants some degree of scientific rigor. Why? The biggest reason is that in software development, we almost never build the same thing twice under the same conditions. Add to that the fact that there are no accepted standards of measurement for productivity and defects and you see how intractable the problem can be. Still, a number of studies have been done that provide a significant amount of support to the claim that Ada improves productivity and reduces defects. Your humble narrator was charged with measuring both of these phenomena in a prior job position. We built electronic controls for jet and rocket engines. The team of developers were highly experienced, stable and versed in a variety of programming languages. Ada was introduced as a new language for new projects and the team had to learn & use it for developing embedded systems. Productivity and defect mea
Related Questions
- Scientific evidence indicates that gallstones (responsible for more than 90 percent of gallbladder disease) form when fat intake is low. Why?
- Is there any scientific evidence that indicates Ada is more productive and/or safer than other languages?
- I want to use C (Ada, Fortran, Pascal, Cobol, ASM, TCL, etc.). Can RapidApp generate these languages instead of C++?
