Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost 30 August 1997 Ada Joint Program Office Center for Computer Systems Engineering Joint Interoperability & Engineering.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost 30 August 1997 Ada Joint Program Office Center for Computer Systems Engineering Joint Interoperability & Engineering."— Presentation transcript:

1 Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost 30 August 1997 Ada Joint Program Office Center for Computer Systems Engineering Joint Interoperability & Engineering Organization Defense Information Systems Agency

2 Language and Lifecycle Cost2 mm970822.ppt PURPOSE Provide Quantitative Information on Lifecycle Cost Implications of Programming Language Use (Ada* vs C/C++) * Includes Ada 83 and Ada 95

3 Language and Lifecycle Cost3 mm970822.ppt OUTLINE Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies Project Examples Findings

4 Language and Lifecycle Cost4 mm970822.ppt CAVEATS Language debate is often highly subjective and inconclusive –Different perspectives produce different positions –Many have negative reaction to Ada mandate Qualitative arguments do not resolve key issues –Ada is too slow; No Ada programmers; No Ada tools –C code is cryptic; C is unsafe; C maintenance cost high Quantitative cost and productivity data difficult to obtain –Lifecycle cost data requires discipline to collect –Productivity data is often company proprietary –Controlled experiment implementing equivalent large, complex applications in multiple languages is exceedingly expensive Technical language characteristics considered only indirectly –Discussed only with respect to impact on lifecycle cost

5 Language and Lifecycle Cost5 mm970822.ppt SOURCES Commercial Examples –Dr. John McCormick (SUNY) –Kurt Welker (USAF) –Ulf Olsson (CelsiusTech) –Dr. Stephen Zeigler (Rational) Information Sources –Currie Colket (SPAWAR 332) –Les Dupaix (STSC/Hill AFB) –Michael Schrank (MITRE Corp.) –AEGIS Community (Various) –NASA, IEEE, ACM, etc. Study conducted by: –Michael Masters (NSWCDD) –James Readan (NSWCDD) –J. Hoppel (CSC/KGO) –W. Wright (CSC/KGO)

6 Language and Lifecycle Cost6 mm970822.ppt BACKGROUND C created in 1970s to support system software development –Portable assembly language - Dennis Ritchie (C co-developer) Ada 83 designed to address issues related to complex systems C++ added object-oriented features and some type checking to C Ada 95 revision based on a decade of experience with Ada 83 –Real-time and distribution upgrades –Object-oriented features –Programming in the large upgrades C in widespread use in commercial industry; C++ use increasing Ada 83 used predominantly in complex/real-time system market

7 Language and Lifecycle Cost7 mm970822.ppt SOFTWARE GROWTH Source: USAF Software Technology Support Center Program Size (KSLOC) Year


9 Language and Lifecycle Cost9 mm970822.ppt Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies Project Examples Findings OUTLINE

10 Language and Lifecycle Cost10 mm970822.ppt COST FACTORS Commercial viability Standardization and portability –Ada 83 and Ada 95 are ISO standards –C is ANSI standard; It will probably be years before the C++ standard is finally adopted. H. Schildt, ANSI C++ committee,1995 Lifecycle Productivity –Training, programmer productivity, reuse, maintainability Process and tools –High cost of Ada 83 compilers; Ada 95 GNAT is freeware –Added cost of C/C++ process to provide features inherent in Ada Reliability and safety –Ada compiler/runtime validation –Ada technical features: type checking, run-time range checks, restricted pointer use, library consistency, determinism, etc

11 Language and Lifecycle Cost11 mm970822.ppt 3GL (g.p.)M SLOC Ada 83 49.70 C 32.50 FORTRAN 19.55 CMS-2Y/M 18.55 Jovial 13.80 C++ 5.15 Pascal 3.91 PL/1 1.00 Other 3GLs 4.22 TOTAL 148.38 GenerationM SLOC First 3.90 Second 26.30 Third (gen.purp.) 148.38 Third (special) 3.70 Fourth 5.00 Fifth 0.29 TOTAL 187.57 DOD WEAPON SYSTEMS Source: Institute for Defense Analyses survey, P-3054, Jan 95

12 Language and Lifecycle Cost12 mm970822.ppt NON-DOD Ada EXAMPLES Non-DOD Government Use –DOE AdaSage (200K SLOC) –FAA Display System Replacement (DSR) (2.3M SLOC) –NASA Space Station Commercial Use –Boeing 777 (10M SLOC; 2-4M will be inherited/reused) –DEC Design tool –Motorola Cellular Phone –Nippon Communication Products (over 4M SLOC) –Rockwell Beech Starship (375K SLOC) –Rockwell Global Positioning System –GM Heavy Truck transmission computer –Volvo Automated Parts Delivery –Weirton Steel Automated Rolling Mill (500K SLOC) –Genesis Prompt Paymaster (250K SLOC) –Reuters NY Stock Exchange Trader program (250K SLOC)

13 Language and Lifecycle Cost13 mm970822.ppt COMMERCIAL Ada USE Air Traffic Control Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary India Ireland Kenya Netherlands New Zealand Pakistan Scotland Singapore South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Vietnam Banking and Financial Networks Reuters news service Swiss Postbank Electronic Funds Transfer system Commercial Aircraft Airbus 330 Airbus 340 Beechjet 400A (US business jet) Beech Starship I (US business turboprop) Beriev BE-200 (Russian forest fire patrol) Boeing 737-200, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800 Boeing 747-400 Boeing 757 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 Canadair Regional Jet Embraer CBA-123 and CBA-145 (Brazilian-made regional airliners) Fokker F-100 (Dutch DC-9-size airliner - American Airlines flies these) Ilyushin 96M (Russian jetliner) Saab 2000 Tupolev TU-204 (Russian jetliner) Communication and Navigational Satellites and Receivers INMARSAT - voice and data communications to ships and mobile communications Intelsat VII NSTAR (Nippon Telephone and Telegraph) PanAmSat (South American Intelsat-like consortium) United States Coast Guard Differential Global Positioning System (GPS) Rockwell Collins NavCore V GPS receiver ESA/Alcatel-SEL GPS receiver TDRSS Ground Terminals - NASA Scientific Satellites Cassini command subsystem ENVISAT-1 - European Space Agency (ESA), Earth observation satellite XMM - ESA EOS - NASA's Earth Observing System GOES RadarSat (Canada) UK Space Technology Research Vehicle, auxillary payload on Ariane4 Railway Transportation Cairo Metro Calcutta Metro Caracas Metro Channel Tunnel Conrail (major U.S. railway company) French High-Speed Rail (TGV) French National Railways Hong Kong Suburban Rail London Underground Paris Metro Paris Suburban Rail Television Industry Canal+ (French pay-per-view TV, remote cable box control software) Medical Industry JEOL Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Source: George Washington University EE & Comp. Science Dept.

14 Language and Lifecycle Cost14 mm970822.ppt LANGUAGE USE What are your top three development tools? Percentage of Tool Companies using PowerBuilder44 Visual BASIC42 COBOL40 C++20 Access (DBMS)18 Oracle (DBMS)14 Borland Delphi 8 Source: Forrester Research Inc. survey responses from 50 Fortune 1000 companies Changing Language Use Percent Change Language from 1993 to 1994 C / C++ -32 FORTRAN 49 Visual BASIC 60 COBOL 75 Smalltalk200 Source: Dataquest survey of Microsoft Windows application programmers, Communications Week, Aug 1995 Source: IEEE Computer, March 1996

15 Language and Lifecycle Cost15 mm970822.ppt FOUNDATION LANGUAGES Source: University of Michigan Computer Science Dept. survey WORLDWIDEUSA Ada Modula 5% C 11% C++ 10% Scheme 12% Pascal 40% Others 6% 16% Ada 17% Modula 8% C 9% C++ 8% Scheme 11% Others 12% Pascal 36% Pascal Ada Modula C C++ Scheme Others

16 Language and Lifecycle Cost16 mm970822.ppt Ada AS A FOUNDATION University of Alabama Auburn University California State Long Beach Clemson University Gallaudet University Georgia State University University of Maryland University of Missouri University of New Orleans State University of New York Penn State University University of Texas Austin West Virginia University Number of institutions teaching Ada as a Computer Science foundation YearCS1CS2/7Total 1991 20 20 40 1992 30 27 57 1993 52 33 85 1994 63 37 100 1995 97 41 138 1996110 36 146 1997114 36 150 Source: George Washington University EE & CS Dept. survey

17 Language and Lifecycle Cost17 mm970822.ppt STANDARDIZATION Ada 83 is an ISO standard Ada 95 is an ISO standard C is an ANSI standard C++ is not yet a standard –It will probably be years before the C++ standard is finally adopted. H. Schildt, ANSI C++ committee,1995 –Results of recent ISO canvas for C++ standard: 10 in favor 6 against USA abstained Britain lodged approximately 85 pages of comments

18 Language and Lifecycle Cost18 mm970822.ppt Ada VIABILITY Increasing acceptance in USA –50M SLOC 3GL code base in DOD Weapon Systems –Increasing non-DOD and commercial use –Ada increasingly taught in universities –Ada 95 provides enhanced object oriented features GNAT Ada95 freeware compiler likely to encourage use JAVA WWW language has partial C++ syntax and Ada95 semantics High degree of acceptance in Europe –NATO requires Ada; European vendors rarely request waivers High degree of acceptance in Far East –Compiler sales greater than US and Europe combined Ada market appears stable or increasing

19 Language and Lifecycle Cost19 mm970822.ppt OUTLINE Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies Project Examples Findings

20 Language and Lifecycle Cost20 mm970822.ppt LANGUAGE STUDIES USAF Study, Ada and C++: A Business Case Analysis, 1991 –Sponsored by Lloyd K. Mosemann, SAF/AQK USAF Software Technology Support Center (STSC) surveys –Les Dupaix of STSC tracked software business case info since 1990 –Monitored numerous government studies (over 100M SLOC) –Survey of 11 European aerospace and defense contractors, 1995 Institute for Defense Analyses survey MITRE Software Maintenance study –Ada in the Maintenance Arena, Schrank, Boyce & Davis, 1995 Other sources: NASA, IEEE, ACM, AT&T, Ada Information Clearinghouse, etc. AEGIS Experience

21 Language and Lifecycle Cost21 mm970822.ppt AIR FORCE STUDY 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 & C 3 I projects –Info system ranking: C++ = 1324; Ada = 1631 (23% better) –C 3 I system ranking: C++ = 1401; Ada = 1738 (24% better) Naval Postgraduate School addressed policy issues –Recommended continued investment in Ada

22 Language and Lifecycle Cost22 mm970822.ppt STSC EUROPEAN SURVEY BT Systems, Sweden CelsiusTech, Sweden CRI, Denmark Dassault Electronique, France FMV, Sweden Heise Software, Germany Note: Software products from the above companies represent an Ada code base of over 25M SLOC SATT Control, Sweden Sextant Avionique, France TERMA, Denmark Thompson CSF, France Volvo, Sweden

23 Language and Lifecycle Cost23 mm970822.ppt Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies –Productivity –Program Integration –Reliability & Maintenance Project Examples Findings OUTLINE

24 Language and Lifecycle Cost24 mm970822.ppt DOMAIN PRODUCTIVITY Source: USAF Software Technology Support Center Based on over 100M SLOC of military and commerical software

25 Language and Lifecycle Cost25 mm970822.ppt DOMAIN COST Source: USAF Software Technology Support Center Based on over 100M SLOC of military and commerical software

26 Language and Lifecycle Cost26 mm970822.ppt Source: Ada vs C++: A Business Case Analysis, CTA Substudy, July 1991 SLOC / MM 0 50 100 150 200 250 Standard (all lang.)Ada Long TermFirst Ada Project PRODUCTIVITY 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 S L O C / H o u r 118% Improvement 627% Improvement HistoricalAda (First Ship) Ada & Reuse Source: CelsiusTech, Sweden

27 Language and Lifecycle Cost27 mm970822.ppt NASA Ada REUSE Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Oct 91 % Reused

28 Language and Lifecycle Cost28 mm970822.ppt DISECONOMY OF SCALE Barry Boehm:* –The more members that are added to a team, the more... time is consumed in communication with other team members... –This decrease in [programmer] productivity on larger projects is called a diseconomy of scale in economic terms. Methods with different impacts on productivity/cost will have a relatively greater impact as program size increases * Source: Software Engineering Economics, Barry Boehm, Prentice-Hall (COCOMO model) Program Size (KSLOC) Productivity (SLOC/SM) * 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2832128

29 Language and Lifecycle Cost29 mm970822.ppt PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT Ada productivity compared to other HOLs Source: USAF Software Technology Support Center Based on over 100M SLOC of military and commerical software

30 Language and Lifecycle Cost30 mm970822.ppt Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies –Productivity –Program Integration –Reliability & Maintenance Project Examples Findings OUTLINE

31 Language and Lifecycle Cost31 mm970822.ppt PROGRAM ERRORS 10% 30% 50% Requirements Definition Software Design CodingTestingDeployment $ 5 $ 10 Requirements Definition Software Design CodingTestingDeployment Source of Errors - %'s Communications of the ACM, Jan. '84 Relative Cost to Correct Errors - $1000's Source: AT&T Bell Labs Estimates

32 Language and Lifecycle Cost32 mm970822.ppt DEVELOPMENT PHASES Percnet of Total Effort (%) Design Code & Debug Test 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Non-AdaAda Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 1982-89

33 Language and Lifecycle Cost33 mm970822.ppt DEVELOPMENT PHASES Source: USAF STSC European survey Percent of Total Effort (%)

34 Language and Lifecycle Cost34 mm970822.ppt PROGRAM INTEGRATION Analysis, Design, Code Integration 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Historical Ada (First Ship) Source: CelsiusTech, Sweden Errors found at integration are costly to fix –Integration is the most costly phase Requires the most people and equipment –Integration is the most repeated phase Required after major upgrades Tools that reduce integration time also reduce cost

35 Language and Lifecycle Cost35 mm970822.ppt CSC EXPERIENCE Note: design, code, unit test, and integration & test values are percent of total effort * Baselines 1 through J2.2, 1984-1995 ProgramLang.SLOCDesignCodeU/TI&T AEGIS CMS-2Y 31M* 38 12 13 37 ADMAda 75K 39 19 22 20 Australian SubAda100K 42 16 21 21 JCALSAda400K 38 21 21 20 ENWGSAda511K 16 40 26 18 AN/BSY-2Ada700K 42 16 21 21 IPSAda718K 16 23 24 37 JCALS C 7K 38 21 21 20 TGC C 43K 35 29 15 22 E-CALS C 91K 40 20 10 30

36 Language and Lifecycle Cost36 mm970822.ppt Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies –Productivity –Program Integration –Reliability & Maintenance Project Examples Findings OUTLINE

37 Language and Lifecycle Cost37 mm970822.ppt RELIABILITY New York, Chicago telephone system crashs –Crashs caused by C pointer problems Baltimore Memorial Hospital X-ray machine –6 deaths, 250 injuries –Defect caused by C pointer problem Smog sensor –$1M+ fine by EPA Internatl Energy Commission –150 features of C language are unsafe for nuclear use IntegrationFormal Qual. Test 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Standard (all lang.)Average Ada Source: USAF study - Ada vs C++: A Business Case Analysis, CTA Substudy, July 1991 Error Rates Errors / KSLOC

38 Language and Lifecycle Cost38 mm970822.ppt AIRBUS BRAKES Data with- held Source: Thompson, France Number of Errors

39 Language and Lifecycle Cost39 mm970822.ppt MAINTENANCE

40 Language and Lifecycle Cost40 mm970822.ppt MITRE STUDY Ada in the Maintenance Arena, Schrank, Boyce & Davis, MITRE, 1995 –Used Lockheed Martins Programmed Review of Information for Costing and Evaluation (PRICE) Software (PRICE-S) model –Examined military airborne avionics software –Used Capers Jones function point data base Compares equal functionality vice equal SLOC –Estimated 10-year maintenance cost for Ada C Other HOL (Pascal & FORTRAN) –Assumed experienced programmers and good tools

41 Language and Lifecycle Cost41 mm970822.ppt ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Function Points 1994 dollars X $1000 75,000 LOC 112,500 LOC 135,000 LOC 150,000 LOC 225,000 LOC 270,000 LOC Airborne avionics software Source: MITRE Study, Schrank, Boyce & Davis, 1995

42 Language and Lifecycle Cost42 mm970822.ppt OUTLINE Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies Project Examples Findings

43 Language and Lifecycle Cost43 mm970822.ppt PROJECTS Perceived Failures Real-time course at the State University of New York (SUNY), Plattsburgh NY Air Force Improved Many-On-Many (IMOM) reengineering and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) studies CelsiusTech, Swedish defense contractor (corvette class) Rational Software Corporation experience with Verdix Ada Development Systems (VADS)

44 Language and Lifecycle Cost44 mm970822.ppt PERCEIVED FAILURES SYSTEM Federal Aviation Administration Advanced AutomatIon System (AAS) - program was restructured and descoped in 1994 F16 Avionics - system worked but had cost and schedule overruns SUBACS - Failed to deliver on schedule P3C Update 4 - Cancelled while behind schedule ASSESSMENT Lincoln Lab report: Shifting requirements. [T]he benefits of using Ada for the development and maintenance of large systems are well-known. Development team unfamiliar with Ada and F16, had 18 mo. schedule, used new parallel processor w/shared memory, changed runtime and methodology, used rate monotonic scheduling. Well into the project the sponsor cut one year off the schedule; product delivered on original schedule. Mission need diminished due to declining Soviet threat. Technology transferred to allies.

45 Language and Lifecycle Cost45 mm970822.ppt FAA AAS $4B program to replace FAA air traffic control system hardware and software tower, terminal and enroute facilities; 2M SLOC Ada on distributed IBM RS/6000 –In 1994 the program was restructured: terminal part cancelled; tower part descoped; enroute part became Display Replacement System (DSR) The Role of Ada in the Restructuring of the Advanced Automation System Program –Abstract of paper by Jonathan Dehn and Michael Glasgow, Loral Air Traffic Control Root problems in the AAS –Inadequate requirements baseline control –Extremely high availability requirements that led to high complexity in the implementation –Changing mission needs [Ada] had little to do with the problems that caused the restructuring of the program. –Note: beneficial aspects of Ada use not yet addressed in the draft paper –Shortage of truly knowledgable Ada programmers... –Ada is frequently maligned for being a poor [execution] performer... We reject this notion. –Resource intensive in the development environment –Ada suffers from a severe image problem... viewed as a dead-end language

46 Language and Lifecycle Cost46 mm970822.ppt PROJECT X Project X (also perceived by some as an Ada failure) –Company and project name withheld by agreement with source Large, real-time, distributed system on a COTS UNIX paltform –Command and control system with a high reliability requirement Average level of programmer experience Approximately 1M SLOC of Ada Approximately 110K SLOC lines of C code –Handled interface with a COTS network product Project development completed –Currently in system test phase

47 Language and Lifecycle Cost47 mm970822.ppt PROJECT X RESULTS Productivity rates for both Ada and C (SLOC per staff month) –300: Includes time spent writing code, unit and string testing –200: Including design and CDR time –160: Including integration time –150: Including system test time 11 defects observed per KSLOC, regardless of language C defects took 4 times longer to fix than Ada defects –C fix rate may have been impacted by low-level nature of services (communication code) implemented in C

48 Language and Lifecycle Cost48 mm970822.ppt SUNY REAL-TIME COURSE Real-time Course at the State University of New York (SUNY), Plattsburgh NY –A Model Railroad for Ada and Software Engineering, Communications of the ACM, November 1992 –POC John W. McCormick, Ph.D. Teams of 3-4 students design and build real-time model railroad control system –Students have background in Pascal or Modula-2 –5,000-15,000 lines of code –30-60 loosely coupled threads of control –27 independently powered blocks of track –6 reversing loops, 25 turnouts (switches) –150 toggle switches would be needed to manually control layout

49 Language and Lifecycle Cost49 mm970822.ppt SUNY RESULTS Used C as the programming language for the first five years –No team ever completed its project, even when the instructor provided up to 60% of the project code Five years ago the programming language was changed to Ada –Initially about 50% of the teams completed their projects without instructor support code –With instructor support code, about 75% of the teams now complete their project

50 Language and Lifecycle Cost50 mm970822.ppt Dr. McCORMICKS COMMENTS Students produced working systems significantly faster with Ada Students were able to focus on software engineering issues rather than language issues –Elimination of single keystroke errors (e.g., using = instead of ==) –High level of abstraction for multi-tasking –Higher level of abstraction for bit manipulation and data types (far less pointer manipulation) –Ada program library (team members know when a specification changes) –Exception handlers to separate normal processing from error handling –Modularity and information hiding through packages –Encapsulation through private and limited private types –Code reuse through generic units

51 Language and Lifecycle Cost51 mm970822.ppt IMOM REENGINEERING Air Force Improved Many-On-Many (IMOM) reengineering and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) studies –Electronic Combat Model Reengineering, Ada Information Clearinghouse, March 1995 –Improved Many-On-Many (IMOM) Model Research Study, United States Air Force Electronic Warfare Center, May 1991 –POC Kurt Welker Developed in 1984 in FORTRAN for proprietary hardware –333,400 lines of code Translated to C in 1988 for users without proprietary hardware –Used automated translation tool to convert FORTRAN to C –C required significant manual clean-up –Maintained original software design and architecture

52 Language and Lifecycle Cost52 mm970822.ppt IMOM MAINTENANCE High maintenance costs –Maintaining two systems in different languages –Original software design deteriorated significantly Air Force sponsored study by INEL; the study recommended: –Reengineer and redesign the system Translated C harder to maintain than FORTRAN original Code produced by translator not optimized –Use object-oriented techniques Modularity, data abstraction, and process abstraction –Use the Ada programming language Ada implementation more efficient, compact (data types and structures) Ada support environment provides needed tools (e.g., debugger) Package abstraction improves program maintainability

53 Language and Lifecycle Cost53 mm970822.ppt IMOM Ada REDESIGN Redesigned and recoded in Ada 83 –213,000 SLOC FORTRAN to C conversion required 54 MM –Final C implementation required a significant amount of clean-up Reengineering of IMOM required 72 MM Reengineering of three other IMOM-based models required a total of 20 MM –Significant amount of reuse in Ada among IMOM models –65% of the code modules were reused in one or more models

54 Language and Lifecycle Cost54 mm970822.ppt MAINTAINABILITY INDEX Maintainability Index - a measure of success –Set of polynomial metrics developed at the University of Idaho –Uses Halsteads effort/module and McCabes cyclomatic complexity/module, plus other factors –Validated in the field by Hewlett-Packard –Language independent –Index is a number between 0 and 100 –Used primarily to determine if modules have a high, medium, or low degree of difficulty to maintain HP concluded modules with a MI less than 65 are considered difficult to maintain

55 Language and Lifecycle Cost55 mm970822.ppt IMOM MI HISTORY FORTRAN MI was low due to poor adaptability of original design to meet changing requirements C MI was low due to the fact that the C code was originally generated from the FORTRAN code Ada MI was high, which resulted in a very maintainable system 0 Functionality Ada IMOM FORTRAN IMOM C IMOM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Maintanability A IMOM 2.0 A IMOM 1.0 F IMOM 4.0 F IMOM 4.4 C IMOM 1.0 C IMOM 2.0 F IMOM 5.0 DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN

56 Language and Lifecycle Cost56 mm970822.ppt CelsiusTech CelsiusTech, Swedish defense contractor (corvette class) –On the verge of bankrupcy in 1988; switched to Ada –$350M profit in 1992; key to profitability is reuse –POC Ulf Olsson Eleven real-time combat system applications delivered in Ada –VME-based shared memory compute nodes (non-UNIX) –Processing distributed over 20 nodes via Ethernet & TCP/IP –Designed to minimize network traffic; high frequency operations allocated within individual nodes –Ada tasks communicate asynchronously Total code base: approximately 3M SLOC Ada –Ada required significant initial investment –Swedish & Danish ships shared only one interface; had 65% reuse –Ported 500K+ SLOC from 68000 to RS/6000; changed 0.6% of code

57 Language and Lifecycle Cost57 mm970822.ppt REUSE Source: CelsiusTech Sweden u CelsiusTech approach: design for reuse from the beginning u Built an architecture for shipboard use u Delivered to 10 customers u Extended to ground- based intercept system u Reuse level depends on number of common interfaces

58 Language and Lifecycle Cost58 mm970822.ppt Comparison of C and Ada at Rational Software Corporation –Comparing Development Costs of C and Ada, Rational Software Corporation, March 1995 –POC Stephen F. Zeigler, Ph.D. Productivity data on Verdix Ada Development System* (VADS) product line from March 1986 through June 1994 –Products include compilers, builders, runtimes, and debug tools written in a combination of Ada and C –Includes data for development and maintenance activities –Automated data collection Product line originally written entirely in C, achieved approximate language parity in 1991 –1.51M SLOC in C (as of October 1994) –1.27M SLOC in Ada (as of October 1994) *Verdix merged with Rational Corp. in 1994 RATIONAL Ada SYSTEM

59 Language and Lifecycle Cost59 mm970822.ppt RATIONAL (cont.) Same developers worked on Ada and C –Same design methods used regardless of language –Low personnel turnover (5%) throughout life of project Used DOD rule to decide what to rewrite –Anything new written in Ada –Anything changed by more than 1/3 rewritten in Ada Exercised more careful control of C code during development –Avoided Cs higher optimization levels –Avoided complex data structuring of nested unions and structures Equivalent degrees of difficulty for VADS components –Code generator still written in C –Runtime, optimizer, cross linker, library services, and support tools were rewritten in Ada

60 Language and Lifecycle Cost60 mm970822.ppt Verdix Ada System Other Projects Metric C Ada Factor C++ Ada Factor Source KSLOC Fixes per KSLOC Fixes per feature Defects * per KSLOC Cost per SLOC RATIONAL RESULTS * Defects: customer-reported problems 9.21 4.59 2.0 0.52 0.25 2.0 $10.52 $6.62 1.7.676.096 7.0(!).978.222 4.4 15091273 883 589

61 Language and Lifecycle Cost61 mm970822.ppt Dr. ZEIGLERS COMMENTS Ada reduces the effective complexity of the overall developers job –encourages better program design –encourages its users to spend more time in writing to describe their code Ada provides better tool support (i.e., language features) –Particularly in the area of parallel processing (i.e., tasking) Ada provides better locality of errors –Local in time and space

62 Language and Lifecycle Cost62 mm970822.ppt OUTLINE Introduction Cost Factors Language Studies Project Examples Findings

63 Language and Lifecycle Cost63 mm970822.ppt SOURCES George Washington University State Univ. of New York University of Michigan AT&T Bell Atlantic Barry Boehm (COCOMO) Capers Jones Celsius Tech, Sweden Computer Sciences Corp. CTA Inc. / Reifer Consultants Lockheed Martin Corp. Loral Air Traffic Control MITRE / LMC PRICE-S model OC Systems Rational Corp. Thompson, France TRW George Washington University State Univ. of New York University of Michigan AT&T Bell Atlantic Barry Boehm (COCOMO) Capers Jones Celsius Tech, Sweden Computer Sciences Corp. CTA Inc. / Reifer Consultants Lockheed Martin Corp. Loral Air Traffic Control MITRE / LMC PRICE-S model OC Systems Rational Corp. Thompson, France TRW ACM Ada Information Clearinghouse DISA Idaho National Eng. Lab IEEE Institute for Defense Analyses NASA/GSFG Naval Postgraduate School NSWCDD Cost Group NSWCDD LSE CPCRs Software Engineering Institute SPAWAR USAF Business Case Study USAF IMOM USAF STSC ACM Ada Information Clearinghouse DISA Idaho National Eng. Lab IEEE Institute for Defense Analyses NASA/GSFG Naval Postgraduate School NSWCDD Cost Group NSWCDD LSE CPCRs Software Engineering Institute SPAWAR USAF Business Case Study USAF IMOM USAF STSC

64 Language and Lifecycle Cost64 mm970822.ppt Staff Number Purify Rational Apex SGI C++/GNAT Size Licenses Tool C++ * Ada C++* Ada COMPILER/TOOLS COST * Includes Purify tool 100 67 155K 561K 1104K 314K 159K 150 100 232K 825K 1672K 456K 224K 250 167 387K 1333K 2776K 702K 315K 200 133 310K 1098K 2224K 585K 275K 50 33 $77K $290K $574K $162K $85K

65 Language and Lifecycle Cost65 mm970822.ppt FINDINGS Commercial viability of Ada –C/C++ will continue to occupy a large market share –Numerous and increasing non-DOD use suggests Ada longevity –Ada 95 GNAT freeware compiler likely to increase Ada use –Java impact unknown but may enhance Ada 95 use Standardization and portability –Ada 83, Ada 95 and C are standards; C++ is not Programmer training –C/C++ programmers widely available but without real-time training –Ada not difficult to learn, may be easier to learn for real-time apps. –Increasing number of universities teaching Ada, esp. as foundation Development cost –Some Ada initial development costs may be higher than C

66 Language and Lifecycle Cost66 mm970822.ppt FINDINGS (cont.) Lifecycle maintenance and upgrade cost –Ada has long term advantage due to increased maintainability –Ada follow-ons and upgrades less costly due to ease of reuse Process and tools –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) Reliability and safety –Ada error rate and cost-to-fix are lower than C and C++ Based on available lifecycle cost data... Absent extenuating factors, use of C/C++ cannot be substantiated

67 Language and Lifecycle Cost67 mm970822.ppt IMPORTANT FACTORS Programming in the large –Translates to reduced lifecycle cost Reliability and safety Real-time and multitasking

68 Language and Lifecycle Cost68 mm970822.ppt Inheritance COMPARISON Feature AdaC++ ConcurrencyDistributionAbstraction levelStandardizationLibrary consistencyEncapsulationError handlingLow level operationsFeature (cont.) AdaC++ Compiler checkingDeterminismCompiler validationRun time checksReal-time supportPolymorphismReadability full supportpartial supportlittle or no support

69 Language and Lifecycle Cost69 mm970822.ppt DEFINITIONS Abstraction level: distance from assembly language features Compiler checking: type checks Compiler validation: formal testing of compiler vs test case Concurrency: semantic support for multi-threaded processing Determinism: guarantees of timing, ordering, no priority inv. Distribution: support for multi- computer platforms Encapsulation: ability to hide implementation detail from user Error handling: formal support for detecting & handling errors Inheritance: composition from previous types and operations Low-level operations: bit, byte, address & register operations Library consistency: compiler detection of obsolete code units Polymorphism: same operation on multiple entities, e.g., data types Readability: clarity of written code Real-time: type time, scheduling, priorities, synchronization Run-time checks: out-of-range, type compatibility checks at dispatch time Standardization: formal process of acceptance

70 Language and Lifecycle Cost70 mm970822.ppt SUN COMPARISON Source: The Java Language Environment, A white Paper, James Gosling and Henry McGilton, October 1995, Sun Microsystems Key: Feature exists Somewhat exists Doesnt exist Java SmallTalk TCL Perl Shells C C++ High Medium Low Medium Low High High Simple Object Orient. Robust Secure Interpreted Dynamic Portable Neutral Threads Garbage Col. Exceptions Performance

71 Language and Lifecycle Cost71 mm970822.ppt EXPERT COMMENTS Jean Ichbiah - inventor of Ada C was designed to be written; Ada was designed to be read Herbert Schildt - ANSI C++ Standards Committee C gives the programmer what the programmer wants; few restrictions, few complaints... C++ maintains the original spirit of C, that the programmer not the language is in charge. P.G. Plauger - ANSI C Committee Beyond 100,000 lines of code, you should probably be coding in Ada. Sextant - French aerospace contractor Lack of experience in Ada causes poor code performance; lack of experience in C produces code errors. CelsiusTech - Swedish defense contractor We no longer need worry about getting more efficient at producing software because thats not where our cost is.

72 Language and Lifecycle Cost72 mm970822.ppt COMPUTING CORNERSTONES Capacity –Sufficient computing resources to perform required tasks Connectivity –Sufficient communication bandwidth and latency among system components Control –Bounded, deterministic management of time, computational sequence and reaction to external events Continuous Availability –Continuously available despite failures and damage Correctness –Free from errors that impact mission Efficacy of Design –Lifecycle cost effectiveness, including low cost of ownership and ease of change In commercial practice, user does final QA Military systems must be ready for war.

73 Language and Lifecycle Cost73 mm970822.ppt CORRECTNESS CORNERSTONE Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of C++ C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that harder but when you do, it blows away your whole leg. James Gosling - Inventor of Java Some languages, such as Ada, fit well and are pretty straightforward ports of the Java virutal machine. Sun will not attempt to run C and C++ code on the virtual machine, however, because it is more difficult to ensure the reliability and, therefore, the security of downloaded code. Reference Manual for the Ada Programming Language, ANSI/MIL- STD-1815A-1983 –Ada was designed with three overriding concerns: program reliability and maintenance, programming as a human activity, and efficiency. –... emphasis was placed on program readability over ease of writing. –... error-prone notations have been avoided. –... compilers can ensure that operations on variables are compatible with the properties intended for objects of the type.

74 Presentation Request Cover Sheet Special Instructions: 4/97 This is the reworked Masters brief, with script (Carl, John and Don Rosen did script.) The script is called mmscript.doc. 8/22/97 Derived from Ada_cos3.ppt - PA cleared with notes to make amendments to remove all Policy mentions (slides 1, 3, 6, 7, 21, 22, 23, 25, 32, 38, 44, 46, 64, 68 changed; slides 4 and 10 removed.) script is mm970822.doc Both.ppt and.doc will be put on web. Name: Gary Shupe Date submitted:8/15/97 Requested delivery date:ASAP Presentation title:Formerly known as Masters brief Presented by: Presentation date:for web Presented to: Acetates: B/W Color Paper: # of originalsB/WColor # of copiesB/WColor Stapled Single-sided/no script Single-sided/script Double-sided Double-sided/script Clear Through Public Affairs 74 mm970822.ppt

Download ppt "Programming Languages and Lifecycle Cost 30 August 1997 Ada Joint Program Office Center for Computer Systems Engineering Joint Interoperability & Engineering."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google