Re: why learn C?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes:

> <adaworks@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:6XbPh.4025$u03.802@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>>....   I have colleagues who use both languages who realize
>> that C++ is far more error-prone than Ada.    While one can get a
>> good set of working software in C++ using heroic efforts, the chance
>> of errors in a C++ program is much higher in a corresponding program
>> written in Ada.   I find it strange that anyone who understands both
>> languages well would come to any other conclusion.
>>
>> Richard Riehle
>>
>
> Me too.

I think I've tried to explain before that it is very rare, that real
projects can choose a language absolutely freely, based only on the
merits / properties of the languages in question. In reality, most
people work with a given language on a historically grown code
base. If new projects are started, they are usually started in a
corporate environment which also has existing infrastructure,
experience, a source code base, coding guide lines etc. All this is
often a motivation not to change the language or at least "not just
now".

The way Richard presents things distorts reality somewhat: He gives
the impression that there is a number of peple out there, which know
C++ and Ada equally well, start projects with an absolutely clean
slate (no development environment, no code base on which to build, no
corporate guide lines) and then -- with seeing eyes -- decide for C++
and against Ada, but still expect completely error free software.

This is not so.

(And given the state of vendor support on various platforms from
embedded to PC operating systems in both C++ and Ada, I could still
understand if some people came to the conclusion that, to retain the
flexibility, both in moving from platform to platform as well as in
hiring developers, that they would be prepared to accept "proneness"
to lesser quality -- if I had to make that decision I'd try to avoid
this outcome, but I certainly would understand the point of somebody
who would decide differently).

In summary: Technical merits of languages play only a tiny part in
decisions for or against a given language. But I already have said
that often enough, haven't I?

Regards -- Markus