From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc52c633190162e0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why learn C? References: <1172144043.746296.44680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1172161751.573558.24140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <546qkhF1tr7dtU1@mid.individual.net> <5ZULh.48$YL5.40@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <1175215906.645110.217810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1175230700.925143.28490@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6XbPh.4025$u03.802@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:59:58 +0200 Message-ID: <0fbqi9tncx.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LRYrSpN75+mhRJRtz6MMg7mhorM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.206.149 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1175356378 88.72.206.149 (31 Mar 2007 17:52:58 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14703 Date: 2007-03-31T17:59:58+02:00 List-Id: "Steve" writes: > 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