Controlling Costs with
Software Language Choice
How Ada Can Help

License to Distribute: AdaCore
By Chris Rommel, Executive Vice President

table of contents
Introduction

3

IoT Forcing Reevaluation of Development Economics

6

Total Cost of Development

7

VDC’s TCO Calculator
Example Total Cost of Development Calculations
So Why is Ada Saving Organizations Development Cost?
		

1. Lower Cost Development Resources		

2. Average Ada Projects are Shorter in Duration		

3. Ada Projects are Reported as More Likely to Be on Schedule		

4. Focused Resource Application

		

5. Software Development Cost Savings“How” Ada Can Help13

1. Reliability
2. Reusability
3. Flexibility and Scalability
4. Ease of Use
Conclusion

14

About VDC Research

14

list of exhibits
Exhibit 1: Primary Factor Driving Respondent’s Organization to Utilize/Deploy IoT Capabilities
Exhibit 2: Capabilities or Features Included in Current Project
Exhibit 3: Types of Processors Used on Current Project
Exhibit 4: Largest Overall Challenge for Respondent’s Organization in Developing IoT Solutions
Exhibit 5: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Communications/Networking/x86based Project
Exhibit 6: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Aerospace and Defense /ARM-based
Project
Exhibit 7: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Automotive/ARM-based Project
Exhibit 8: Total Project Length in Calendar Months (Time from Initial Specification to Shipment),
Segmented by Software Development Language Use
Exhibit 10: Estimated Distribution of Development Costs on the Project, Segmented by Software
Development Language Use
Exhibit 11: Estimated Total Cost of Development for the Project, Segmented by Software Development
Language Use© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

2

Introduction
Much has been written about impact of IoT. There are new customer requirements, new business models, and competitive
pressure all driving change within engineering organizations. These shifting requirements have catalyzed more andmore need for connectivity middleware, remote management capabilities and increasing interest in technologies likemachine vision and energy harvesting.
Exhibit 1: Primary Factor Driving Respondent’s Organization to Utilize/Deploy IoT Capabilities(Percentage of Respondents)

11.7%

Customer/enterprise requirements

2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
2.8%

Finding new strategic opportunities
or service-oriented business models
Competitive pressure
37.7%
Cutting time to market

15.8%
Macroeconomic conditions
Pricing pressures
26.3%
Other
Don’t know

As much hype and promise surrounds the IoT, connected embedded systems are not new. Initiatives to derive moresynergies through connected factories and manufacturing environments have been around for decades. Cars and trucks
with telematics and services such as OnStar are likewise old concepts. However, the industry has unequivocally reached
a new point of concavity in its pairing of increasingly connected systems with corporate business directives and businessmodels. The combination of these technical and business forces has created a self-reinforcing cycle, driving greater
adoption and investment in new technology. Despite many organizations and solutions vendors’ pursuit of new IoTdriven opportunities and functional requirements, these new goals have not diminished the challenges associated withtraditional embedded engineering requirements. For example, there is an unabating need for solutions catering to realtime and safety-critical applications across a number of embedded device classes. In fact, nearly half of the respondents
to our survey indicated that their current project included real-time response capabilities. In most cases, the expectations
for ubiquitous connectivity and situational awareness and adaptation only augment the risks associated with the failureof time-sensitive or safety-critical systems.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

3

Exhibit 2: Capabilities or Features Included in Current Project(Percentage of Respondents)

Real-time response capabilities

47.9%

Wireless networking capabilities

38.2%

Graphical user interface

36.1%

Wired networking capabilities

34.4%

Mobile/battery-powered form factor

27.0%

Rugged form factor

26.7%

Remote application deployment and management

26.4%

Security enhancements

25.2%

Local events analytics

24.0%

Audio/video

21.6%

Multiple applications support

19.6%

Gesture recognition/touch

14.5%

Mesh networking support

14.3%

Machine vision/object detection

13.1%

Energy harvesting

9.5%

None of the above

0.4%

Don't know

0.1%
0%

20%

40%

60%

Note: Percentages sum to greater than 100% due to multiple responses.
These feature set changes are also accelerating the adoption of new hardware and software products. For example,
OEMs are integrating more robust (often memory-hungry) operating systems and connectivity stacks, with a pluralityof respondents to our survey now using Linux-based OSs. Additionally, new designs are incorporating an increasing
number of complex, multi-processor/SoCs. Five years ago, we saw a shift and adoption of CPU+MCU (e.g. big.LITTLE,etc.) designs to optimize function and power performance. Now, new technologies such as machine learning, vision
processing and security requirements are accelerating this change already underway due to the increasingly complex
software and business requirements. Engineers are responding, increasing their utilization of more complex SoCs,
GPUs, FPGAs and crypto processors to tackle the computationally-intensive workloads of today’s connected devices(See Exhibit 3). In isolation, any new technology adoption can cause development challenges. The combination ofmultiple technology shifts and new business goals can make these issues all the more difficult to navigate. As a result,engineering organizations must be sure to evaluate solutions not only to address functionality gaps in their current
products, but also to help them derive new development efficiencies.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

4

Exhibit 3: Types of Processors Used on Current Project(Percentage of Respondents)

59.6%
58.9%

MCU

50.1%
53.3%

CPU/MPU
SoC

31.2%

FPGA or PLD

29.9%
23.7%

DSP
17.6%

GPU

14.5%

ASIC

10.9%

Cryptographic coprocessor

Current Project1
In 3 years

40.5%

32.9%

26.8%

20.7%

20.3%

7.4%
8.8%

ASSP

4.6%

External/distributed processing
Other

45.7%

9.9%

0.4%
0.4%
3.0%
1.1%

Don’t know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Note: Percentages sum to greater than 100% due to multiple responses.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

5

IoT Forcing Reevaluation of Development
Economics
IoT development is moving many organizations into uncharted territory where they lack the resources and/or expertise toefficiently bring IoT solutions to market. Now, the connectivity demands associated with the IoT bring with them new, or
augmented, challenges such as ‘enabling greater security’ and ‘improving cloud/IT integration’ (See Exhibit 4). Despite
these new variables, development resources and cost are still recognized among the largest challenges for IoT solution
development. New IoT-specific concerns exacerbate theses traditional issues.
Exhibit 4: Largest Overall Challenge for Respondent’s Organization in Developing IoT Solutions(Percentage of Respondents)

Lack of manpower/technical skills

14.3%

Enabling greater security

11.9%

Extending legacy embedded technologies for IoT

11.5%

Reducing cost

9.6%

Cloud/datacenter integration

9.1%

Improving performance

7.5%

Minimizing connectivity expenses

6.7%

Lack of mature commercial development solutions

5.2%

Reducing power consumption

5.2%

Coordination with external solution providers or ISVs

4.7%

Minimizing footprint of hardware

4.6%

Having adequate storage

2.4%

Other

2.6%

Don’t know

4.7%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

In the midst of this evolving landscape of obstacles, schedule and time-to-market challenges have been expanding
as organizations face new development and capacity challenges. Project schedule adherence remains a significant
obstacle for product development organizations, with over one-third of projects already reported as late. Not only dothese excessive delays create added operational cost, but they can also impact revenue opportunities through missed
market windows and sales. Clearly, there is inherent value in predictability, which can earn trust with clients and allow
additional investments based on improved visibility into operational expenditures. Despite the relatively high rate ofproject delays, performance against this metric has improved over the past few years. Part of this improvement iscertainly from the adoption of new development technologies and methodologies. However, the magnitude of IoT-fueledbusiness and development requirement changes necessitates additional adaptations to maintain and/or improve uponcurrent schedule adherence levels.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

6

Total Cost of Development
The

IoT/Embedded

marketisincredibly

complexand

VDC’s TCO Calculator

heterogeneous. The wide range of features and form factors

VDC’s IoT & Embedded Engineering

to equally wide number of factors that drive selection of specificSurvey had over 700 respondents from

hardware and software components. Furthermore, technology

a range of industries. Those results wereselection is influenced not only by current requirements, but also

used to build a total cost of ownershipby investments made during past projects whose substitution

calculator.

can lead to additional labor and cost considerations. Given thenecessitated across the various embedded vertical markets lead

The Total Cost of Ownership calculator
usesavarietyofstatistics

in

its

computation such as: devices per project,
Bill of Material costs, distribution ofdevelopment

costs

by

engineering

discipline on current project, numberof engineers per project, fully-loadedlabor cost average per engineer, project
length,product’s

averageyears

ofuseful life once deployed in field by theend client, estimated total number ofdefects or software patches customers
report/require per deployed year in field,
estimated combined IT and engineering
time (hours) required for each patch

multivariate evaluations undertaken by engineering organizations
when selecting technology, it is important for decision makers tounderstand as much about a technology’s potential impact andreturn on investment as possible.
Beyond any organizational or project-specific requirements,
certain trends and inferences can be drawn when comparing
similar projects. There are a number of different costs that impact
the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), such as Bill of Material costs,
development costs, and operational, defect and repair rates.
Some of these statistics are strongly influenced by industry and/or
demographics, but some technology choices stood out as having
significant effect on project outcomes. One such area was softwaredevelopment language choice.

or defect remediation, and estimatedWhile there are a number of factors that can drive organizations

percentage of devices that will become

to select a particular programming language – from memory

inoperable

requirements to in-house expertise to existing software assets –andrequirerepairor

there are many projects when companies could or should have

replacement each year.

those decisions influenced by TCO considerations. Our research
Ourcomparative

cost

calculations

shows that software defect rates and costs remained fairly

emphasize the results from projects fromconsistent between similar projects, with the exception of Java- andthe same vertical market using the same

C#-based projects, which tended to have more software defects

software development language as wellas those from projects from the samevertical market using the same processor
architecture. Additionally, we also take
into account results for projects using
the same processor architecture, samelanguage, and same vertical market.

and patches reported post-deployment. Cost of development
varies widely, however, with project length, team size, and averagedeveloper cost demonstrating the greatest impact on the results. In
order to more effectively measure the impact of technology choices
on organizational costs, VDC created its Total Cost of Ownership
Calculator. When looking at our most recent research results, Ada
was one language that stood out in its impact on various projectsuccess metrics.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

7

Example Total Cost of Development Calculations
To illustrate the impact of language choice on total cost of development, we have included a few example scenarios
for and outputs from our Calculator. The first example evaluates a communications/networking project with an x86
processor that produces 10,000 units and for which C was used for the software development. In this calculation, Ada
demonstrates the best possible savings of the highlighted languages, offering a potential 27% reduction in softwaredevelopment costs.
Exhibit 5: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Communications/Networking/x86-based Project(Percentage Change in Costs Versus Current Use of C)

0%

If Ada used

-5%

If Java used

If C++ used

If C# used

-11.7%-11.5%

-5.0%

-10%

-15%
-20%
-25%
-30%

-27.0%

As you may know, aerospace and defense is a longtime user of Ada, but that industry, too, is quickly changing. Designs
in that sector were once heavy users of PowerPC processors and are now shifting to ARM, with systems integrators
placing greater emphasis on COTS-driven SWaP-C considerations. Engineering organizations have also been placing
a new focus on enabling agility through new methodologies and tooling. In the past, methodical and serial development
was often mandated based on the belief that such processes would lead to more predictable outcomes. Clearly, in
an industry already wrought with long development cycles, understanding what technology choices can drive further
improvements in efficiency is critical. When evaluating a 5,000 unit project in this sector using an ARM processor andC as a programming language, Ada again demonstrates the best possible savings of highlighted options, offering a
potential 38% reduction in software development costs – which translates to a potential project savings of over $500,000.
Exhibit 6: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Aerospace and Defense /ARM-based Project(Percentage Change in Costs Versus Current Use of C)

0%

If Ada used

If Java used

If C++ used

If C# used

-1.7%

-5%
-10%

-11.0%-15%-12.5%

-20%
-25%

-30%
-35%
-40%

-38.0%© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

8

Obviously, the results for our cost of ownership calculator vary from vertical to vertical, based on the range of variables
and considerations in each sector. And, in some cases, Ada is not the best option. The benefits might not be as
pronounced or another language could even be a better choice. In most cases, however, Ada still generally represents
a compelling option. For example, in this Automotive/ARM/C project, C is already a rather efficient choice, even if thedevelopment cost savings potential may not be high enough to justify changes and risk development organization
unease.
Exhibit 7: Potential Software Development Costs Change per Device, Automotive/ARM-based Project(Percentage Change in Costs Versus Current Use of C)

60%

55.9%

50%
37.7%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%

1.0%

If Ada used

If Java used

If C++ used

If C# used

-7.0%

-20%

So Why is Ada Saving Organizations Development Cost?
In an effort to better understand the underlying drivers of the cost savings in our TCO calculation, we identified fivesignificant factors contributing to Ada’s favorable positioning:

1. Lower Cost Development Resources
For any organization, controlling labor costs is one of the most important ways to manage costs. This is especially truefor embedded systems engineering as highly trained and experienced developers can garner significant wages. To that
end, software development language skills and focus have a substantial impact on market wages. For example, themedian fully-loaded labor cost for engineers using Ada was ten percent less than those using C and twenty percent lessthan those using Java ($85,000 versus $95,000 and $105,000, respectively).
At first glance, Ada’s relative standing in this regard was surprising. For many years, safety-critical markets and thetechnologies tailored to them were synonymous with high-cost labor markets. This specialization often led to a significant
cost premium. In many cases, this dynamic is still true as seen through comparing labor cost data between consumer
electronics and aerospace & defense markets. However, the comparative premiums for engineers with safety-criticalbackgrounds is not as high as it once was. In some cases, outsized demand for languages that are very popular at
the moment, such as C++, are driving down market wages for developers specialized in less common technologies.
Additionally, the increased use of languages, such as Java, which are more highly used in IT environments, opened
labor markets and depressed salaries overall.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

9

2. Average Ada Projects are Shorter in Duration
Established ecosystems of third-party Ada solutions and libraries help engineers get a jump start on development andfocus internal investment and speed time to market. In fact, our research shows that average project in which Ada isused is 30% shorter than the average C project. In fact, Ada projects compared favorably in this regard versus all of thelanguages highlighted in this analysis (See Exhibit 8). Further reflecting this dynamic, Ada users consistently report alower percentage of their project costs devoted to labor. In other words, the availability of more commercial solutions
reduces the in-house OpEx risk associated with engineers – and thus the potential cost multipliers when projects require
more time than expected.
Exhibit 8: Total Project Length in Calendar Months (Time from Initial Specification to Shipment),
Segmented by Software Development Language Use(Mean of Responses)

17.7 Current Project C
15.9 Current Project C++
14.2 Current Project C#
14.0 Current Project Java12.2 Current Project Ada
3. Ada Projects are Reported as More Likely to Be on Schedule
Maintaining schedule adherence remains one of the most consistently challenging and frustrating aspects of engineering
project management. Although there are a number of factors that can contribute to delays (even if just focusing on
the identifiable ones), OEMs often go to great lengths to control schedules through process and technology change.
Once again, software development language choice demonstrated a significant correlation with project outcomes. For
example, engineers using C were more than three times as likely to report a project behind schedule as compared tothose using Ada. In other words, projects using Ada as a software development language not only tend to be shorterbut also hold less risk of delay.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

10

Exhibit 9: Adherence to Current Project Schedule, Segmented by Software Development Language Use(Percentage of Responses)

100%
90%

18.8%

12.8%

16.3%

19.0%

24.0%

80%

Ahead of schedule
On schedule

70%

40.8%
42.9%

60%
50%

Behind schedule
41.3%

Don't know
42.7%

68.8%

40%
30%
45.5%

20%
10%
0%

12.5%
Current
Project Ada

39.7%

0.9%

1.0%

Current
Project C

Current
Project C++

39.7%

32.7%

0.6%
Current
Project C#

Current
Project Java

4. Focused Resource Application
With software the single largest cost center for engineering organizations, it is critical that development teams minimize
any unneeded additions in this area. This level of focus can allow organizations to direct labor resources to new areasof differentiation. In fact, Ada users report spending a smaller percentage of their project team’s total development coston software development than do those using other top languages. Furthermore, Ada users report a higher proportion
on other potentially differentiating areas like Cloud/IoT and analytics functionality.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

11

Exhibit 10: Estimated Distribution of Development Costs on the Project,
Segmented by Software Development Language Use(Mean of Responses)

100%
90%
80%

33.8%

39.6%

40.7%

38.3%

37.6%

Mechanical

70%
60%

Electrical

10%
0%

17.8%

18.3%
18.8%

30%

20%

Data/analytics

20.0%

50%
40%

Software

24.4%

25.2%

14.4%
6.4%

7.7%

13.1%

7.6%
1.8%

8.7%
1.7%

Ada

C

C++

17.8%

15.6%

Cloud/IoT
Other

20.5%

11.7%

21.8%

11.5%

10.9%

12.4%

C#

Java

1.2%

5. Software Development Cost Savings
Beyond any single reported statistic related to software efficiency, Ada users cited significantly less expensive projects
when reporting their total development costs. In fact, Ada users reported a mean total cost development that wasapproximately half of that associated with other leading languages. The results similarly hold true in most scenarios in
our TCO calculator, which is constructed to normalize outputs base on industry peer averages.
Exhibit 11: Estimated Total Cost of Development for the Project, Segmented by Software Development Language Use(Mean of Responses)$3,000,000$2,500,000$2,108,861$2,281,653$2,407,206$2,286,948$2,000,000$1,500,000$1,000,000$1,033,429$500,000
$0

Ada

C

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

C++

C#

Java
12

“How” Ada Can Help
Aside from the quantifiable metrics mentioned above, it is important to understand how Ada can benefit a development
organization and lead to those types of results. When evaluating Ada’s suitability, we recommend considering four main
factors:

1. Reliability
Despite the focus and attention on IoT, reliability remains a critical success factor for embedded systems. In many
ways, the deeper interconnection with business results that IoT yields puts reliability at an even higher premium. Oneof the clearest ways reliability manifests itself is through deterministic and real-time requirements. As shown in Exhibit
2, this remains a leading consideration for many engineers. Ada already has a long history of use in safety-criticalmarkets and has several features beneficial to this arena. For example, the technology can help ease certification
documentation through the availability of qualified code generators. Ada’s track record in this sector can make it a good
choice or compliment to embedded and IoT development projects – nearly half of which still have real-time requirements.
Additionally, the use of solutions like SPARK can help further reduce time and cost associated with verification via theinherent facilitation of formal verification and related processes that ensures data and information flows are correct. As
such, unlike some other language choices, it is inherently free from run-time errors and all variables are initiated before
use, which also helps reduce security exploit vulnerabilities.

2. Reusability
The aforementioned time-to-market pressures necessitate an implicit focus on efficiency – and reuse. Organizations
cannot afford to invest valuable man-hours in a technology if they cannot leverage a significant portion of that investment
in future designs. Ada was designed with reusability in mind and its semantics reduces implementation dependencies.
The fact that it is an ISO standard also helps reduce the introduction of any ambiguity, thus further facilitating futurereuse.

3. Flexibility and Scalability
In today’s market, organizations need to maximize agility and their ability to adapt to future requirements. Theirtechnology selections must then be rooted in this same principle to maximize speed to deployment and ROI. Flexibility
and scalability can be even more valuable in markets requiring certification. Certification requirements typically lead to
additional time and costs, so engineering organizations need to identify ways to simplify development and reduce futurechanges’ impact on the time and cost of certification (and recertification). To that end, Ada’s hierarchical libraries ease
the ways in which a module can be extended without modifying or recompiling the original.

4. Ease of Use
As with any technology, the adoption, developer buy-in, and, ultimately, the benefits will be greatly affected by ease ofuse. As discussed above, Ada’s strict programming rules versus other languages can prevent coding errors that would
otherwise lead to additional time during debug/verification. This feature also thus improves ease of use by requiring
less consideration and planning needed around specific bits and memory size, which would otherwise necessitate theimplementation of various coding mechanisms in C. Obviously, a big factor in ease of use is also catering to the skill sets
and experiences related to incumbent or more commonly used technologies. To this end, the Ada community developed
extensive libraries and literature targeted at traditional C and C++ users to learn Ada (not to mention traditional Ada’s
inclusion in many introductory CS curriculums). In fact, Ada is rather unique in that it has interfaces with other languages
already built in. This focus on improving experiences for a range of developers has become even more valuable intoday’s environment, given the increasing frequency of polyglot development in current projects.

© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

13

Conclusion
Never before has there been so much need and opportunity to redefine embedded system engineering practices.
The Internet of Things has catalyzed widespread changes in system feature sets and business process requirements.
Unfortunately, too often these requirement changes have not been paired with sufficient reevaluation of development
technologies and practices. Often the need to satisfy specific functionality requirements leads an engineering organization
to focus primarily on Bill of Material components. Other times, tight time-to-market windows drive organizations to default
to the status quo and opt for reuse of incumbent solutions.
Development technologies have a profound impact on one of the largest and most variable costs associated withembedded system engineering-labor. At a time when on-time system deployment can not only impact customer
satisfaction but access to services revenue streams, engineering team efficiency is at premium. Our research showedthat programming language choices can have significant influence in this area, leading to shorter projects, betterschedules and, ultimately lower development costs. While a variety of factors can influence and dictate language choice,
our research showed that Ada’s evolution has made it an increasingly compelling option for engineering organizations,providing both a technically and financially sound solution.

About the Author
Chris Rommel is responsible for syndicated research andconsulting engagements focused on development and deployment
solutions for intelligent systems. He has helped a wide variety ofContact Chris:clients respond to and capitalize on the leading trends impacting

crommel@vdcresearch.com

next-generation device markets, such as security, the Internet ofThings, and M2M connectivity, as well as the growing need for

Chris Rommel

system-level lifecycle management solutions. Chris has also led a range of proprietary consulting
projects, including competitive analyses, strategic marketing initiative support, ecosystem development
strategies, and vertical market opportunity assessments. Chris holds a B.A. in Business Economics
and a B.A. in Public and Private Sector Organization from Brown University.

About vdc research
Founded in 1971, VDC Research provides in-depth insights totechnology vendors, end users, and investors across the globe.
As a market research and consulting firm, VDC’s coverage of
AutoID, enterprise mobility, industrial automation, and IoT and embedded technologies is among themost advanced in the industry, helping our clients make critical decisions with confidence. Offering
syndicated reports and custom consultation, our methodologies consistently provide accurate forecasts
and unmatched thought leadership for deeply technical markets. Located in Natick, Massachusetts,
VDC prides itself on its close personal relationships with clients, delivering an attention to detail and aunique perspective that is second to none.
© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc. | P 508-653-9000 | www.vdcresearch.com© 2018 VDC Research Group, Inc.

14