- Ada has long term advantage due to increased maintainability - Ada follow-ons and upgrades less costly due to ease of reuse
- Ada 83 compilers are expensive; Ada 95 GNAT is low cost or free - Lack of C/C++ reliability features suggests additional tool support - Cost of maintaining two language environments does not double (programmers likely to specialize in one language or the other)
- Ada error rate and cost-to-fix are lower than C and C++
cannot be substantiated |
| Previous slide | Contents | Next slide |
From the Script: SLIDE 66 - Findings (continued)
Maintainability. One of Ada's significant advantages is its lower maintenance costs. Ada follow-ons and upgrades are also less costly due to software reusability, increased readability (understandability), etc., in short better support for good SE practices. Many of the specific studies cited earlier provided empirical evidence of this claim. Ada has a significant decade-long track record in lowering maintenance costs.
Process and tools. The Ada 83 compilers were expensive. This situation has changed with Ada 95. Certainly, the Ada 95 GNAT compiler is low cost or free. Additionally, other Ada 95 tools are priced much more similarly to their C++, Smalltalk, Eiffel counterparts on many platforms. However, this is not universal. It pays to shop around. Additionally, it is important to compare apples to apples. The lack of C++ reliability features suggests additional tool support - implying additional costs.
Reliability. The error rate and the cost-to-fix are both significantly lower for Ada. Many of the specific studies cited earlier provided empirical evidence of this claim. Ada has a significant decade long track record in raising reliability of systems.
Another way to say this might be: "Only a specious (dubious) case can be made that C/C++ provides you with a lower life-cycle cost solution, or one that meets requirements such as reliability and safety. If it has to work, and work right, Ada is your best choice."