Re: c++ vs ada results

[stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour)]

stevej@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Steve Juneau) writes:
>|> In article <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
   ....
>|> > (as captured in subsystem decomposition and subsystem interface specification),
>|> > each subsystem had a talented lead in charge of its implementation (but could
>|> > not alter the interfaces, which required an architectural decision), and
>|> > within each subsystem there was a team consisting of designers and programmers
>|> > (the designers designed package specs [class headers] and the programmers
>|> > implemented the bodies). It worked great...
       ....
>Was all this achievable because you used Ada, or can have be done with
>any language?  IMHO it can be done with any language.

The question is not only CAN it be done, but can it be done "reaqsonably".
In Ada, the ENFORCEMENT of the specifications by the language gives me
belief that when the system has been compiled and linked, the interfaces
match.  Sure, I could get that in FORTRAN with discipline, or in C
using function prototypes (still with discipline, cause my programmers
need to remember to write them and use them properly).  But in Ada,
the discipline comes easy:  You don't write the prototypes in the
specifications, you can't call the subroutine at all, let alone 
calling it wrong.

   What Ada gives me is the means to provide reasonable, enforceable,
meaningful, interfaces.  That's not available in any other widely
distributed and available-for-software-engineering of real-problems.

   Thus, in practice (as opposed to theory) the answer to your question
is:  "No, it can't be done in 'just any language', but it can be done
in Ada."

   Yours, ...Paul
-- 
Paul Stachour          SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
stachour@sctc.com          Arden Hills, MN  55112
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467