Proficiency in Ada

Proficiency in Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <46we2B1w165w@netlink.cts.com> mshapiro@netlink.cts.com (Michael Shapiro) writes:
>
>There's a difference between learning a language enough to use it and 
>becoming extremely proficient in it.  An experienced programmer should be 
>able to pick up any language similar to the one they've been using fairly 
>quickly.  But they'll learn more and more features and techniques with 
>use.  One of the cost models I have used (SoftCost, if I recall), assumes 
>an Ada programmer is less than fully proficient until they've completed 
>three projects.
>
This is NOT a useful figure of merit unless it is given together with similar
figures for other languages. Do we know how many months, years, or projects
are required before a programmer is proficient in, say, Fortran or C,
sufficiently to write the kind of robust and maintainable systems we all
desire?

Without useful comparative data, you are merely perpetuating the canard
that Ada is somehow DIFFERENT, HARDER, than its predecessors or successors.

I have seen, in 10 years of doing Ada, lots of figures showing how long it
takes to train an Ada programmer, but none that do an honest comparison
of the costs to train a programmer in other languages, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEIR CODE IS OF EQUIVALENT QUALITY. I'll bet we'd find that the numbers
are fairly equivalent; I'd like to believe that an honest comparison
would show Ada in a favorable light, but that would be speculation, as
I have not seen any such comparative data.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman
co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
School of Engineering and Applied Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(202) 994-5253 (voice)
(202) 994-5296 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

"The most important thing is to be sincere, 
and once you've learned how to fake that, you've got it made." 
-- old show-business adage
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Proficiency in Ada

[MILLS,JOHN M.]

Hi, Mike --
 
 (maybe someday we'll meet face to face .. anyway...)
 
In article <1993Apr4.032918.783@seas.gwu.edu> you write:
>In article <46we2B1w165w@netlink.cts.com> mshapiro@netlink.cts.com (Michael Shapiro) writes:
>>
>>There's a difference between learning a language enough to use it and 
>>becoming extremely proficient in it.  An experienced programmer should be 
>> [ Ada proficiency levels and references deleted ]

>This is NOT a useful figure of merit unless it is given together with similar
>figures for other languages. Do we know how many months, years, or projects
>are required before a programmer is proficient in, say, Fortran or C,
>sufficiently to write the kind of robust and maintainable systems we all
>desire?
 
I'm glad you mentioned it.  I was tracking this at about 0.25 concentration
level, and had decided that, given the high level of understanding required
of Ada programmers by all c.l.ada correspondents [8*>), there is probably
(by that measure) a critical shortage of competent programmers in _all_
languages.

As a mechanical engineer who has used software/firmware as parts of
controller designs for lo these past 24 years, I've seen a certain number
of well trained programmers who can run rings around me in clear, elegant
code and versatile data structures, but who clutch completely when they
must respond to asynchronous reality, or reach compromises with the electronic
designers for the simplest or most robust overall system design.  If there
were a way to teach those skills (not as replacements, but as realities and
perspectives), it would be terrific.  Naturally there are corresponding
lacunae in all our views, but the most successful and rewarding projects
I've worked on benefited from a spirit of constructive challenge between
the various disciplines: "I'll bet I can stabilize that drift in the
firmware before you can redesign the analog board ..."  I made it, but was
never able to sell them my wonderful digital rate-loop; maybe that wasn't
so bad, as the pore 'lil 8080 was already _gasping_ along.  The other side
is, " Just _one_ more shift register, and I can do wonders!  Please?
PLEASE!"

Software is a wonderfully abstract, maleable medium, but virtual reality
is no substitute for the real thing.

.. Now, if I can just get down off my hobbyhorse .. @#$%!! .. stuck in the
saddle again!

Regards --jmm--

-- 
John M. Mills, SRE; Georgia Tech/GTRI/TSDL, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jm59
Internet: john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu
EBENE Chocolat Noir 72% de Cacao - WEISS - 42000 St.Etienne - very fine

Re: Proficiency in Ada

[Michael D Shapiro]

In article <1993Apr4.032918.783@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@uunet.uu.net (Michael Fe
ldman) writes:
>In article <46we2B1w165w@netlink.cts.com> mshapiro@netlink.cts.com (Michael Sh
apiro) writes:
>>
>>There's a difference between learning a language enough to use it and 
>>becoming extremely proficient in it.  An experienced programmer should be 
>>able to pick up any language similar to the one they've been using fairly 
>>quickly.  But they'll learn more and more features and techniques with 
>>use.  One of the cost models I have used (SoftCost, if I recall), assumes 
>>an Ada programmer is less than fully proficient until they've completed 
>>three projects.

>This is NOT a useful figure of merit unless it is given together with similar
>figures for other languages. Do we know how many months, years, or projects
>are required before a programmer is proficient in, say, Fortran or C,
>sufficiently to write the kind of robust and maintainable systems we all
>desire?
> 
>Without useful comparative data, you are merely perpetuating the canard
>that Ada is somehow DIFFERENT, HARDER, than its predecessors or successors.

I have no problem with that, and I make no comparisons.  I
merely reported that in one respected software costing model,
SoftCost-Ada, three Ada projects "under the belt" is taken as
the measure that a programmer will be fully productive in Ada.
The whole point of costing models is to find some easy measure
that can be extrapolated to give an indication of the actual
process.  ("X is a good model of Y if you can get a reasonable
answer on some question about Y by asking that question about
X.")

In developing their model, Reifer Consultants (213-373-8728 was
the number a couple of years ago; I think their area code
changed to 310 recently) found that a growing experience curve,
leveling off after three Ada projects appropriately predicted
productivity.  This means both that people will be less than
fully productive before they've completed three projects and
will not be more productive after they've done three.  (That's
if I remember right from my course in using the model a couple
of years ago.)

I, too, would be interested in measures for other languages.
Most software costing models I've seen count experience in years
rather than number of projects.