• “Ada and C++: A Business Case Analysis,” 1991

  • - Five independent studies sponsored by Lloyd Mosemann, SAF/AQK

  • Institute for Defense Analyses study of tools and training

  • - Tools and courses are available

  • Software Engineering Institute used IBM / FAA ranking method

  • - Bottom line scores (scale 0-100): C++ = 64, Ada = 79

  • CTA Inc. analyzed cost factors from Reifer Consultants database

  • - Productivity (KSLOC/SM): All = 183; C++ = 187; Ada = 210
    - Error rate (Errors/KSLOC): All = 33; C++ = 31; Ada = 24

  • TRW detailed analysis of typical info systems & C3I projects

  • - Info system ranking: C++ = 1324; Ada = 1631 (23% better)
    - C3I system ranking: C++ = 1401; Ada = 1738 (24% better)

  • Naval Postgraduate School addressed policy issues

  • - Recommended continued investment in Ada

Previous slide Contents Next slide

From the Script:

SLIDE 21 - Air Force Study

This slide describes some of the studies on which our language analysis has been used. As you can see, we are including data from DOD organizations, non-DOD agencies, research organizations, and several commercial organizations.

This slide highlights the five substudies that were conducted as a part of the 1991 Air Force comparison of Ada (83) and C++. A summary of the report is available: The entire report is several hundred pages long and is only available in hard copy form. The AdaIC can assist groups in obtaining copies.

This slide summarizes some of the important data. The basic bottom line on this study was that Ada was either equal to C++ or had more advantages as of the early '90s.