From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ADDR_WS, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 25 Mar 92 16:37:26 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!mahendo!larissa!felipe@decwrl.dec.com (Felipe Hervias ) Subject: Re: Why ADA? Message-ID: <1992Mar25.163726.10669@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov> List-Id: In article <1992Mar24.161425.125@v7.vitro.com>, carmencs@vitro.com (Carmen Cast ells-Schofield) writes: |> In article <13235@suns3.crosfield.co.uk>, pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes: |> > In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writ es: |> > |> >> at my university, they stress ada development. why should i |> >> program in ada when there is c? what does ada offer me? please, |> >> do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler. |> > |> >> if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i |> >> can not do in c? |> > |> >> dave. |> > |> > |> > The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working |> > life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN |> > ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way. |> > |> > With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try |> > Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve |> > pretty robust 'C'. But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry' |> > the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in. |> > |> > With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'. It is |> > actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as |> > we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good |> > Ada. |> > |> > Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast, |> > most people don't. |> > |> > Paul. |> |> This was a very nice exposition of a sentiment I wanted to convey and couldn 't |> think of how to put. Just to extend this a little, I would say that Ada |> forces you to use these concepts; C just lets you. The difference the firs t |> time you use Ada in a group is amazing; we spent 1 week doing joint design, |> three weeks separately doing development, and then were integrated and runni ng |> in about an hour. This with good software engineers who were doing their |> first Ada project. |> |> The big payback for Ada is for team development. That's not what you learn in |> school, but it is what you'll need in the real world. |> |> -- By learning Ada in school doesn't prepare someone for the 'real world.' You don't need and shouldn't have to use Ada to learn good software development. If you have a good software engineering background the so call benefits of Ada doesn't show. I have used Ada and C is the past and I can see why Ada will never be as popular as C or ever come close. The increasing popularity of C++ will only make C/C++ even more popular. With all the defense cuts (the driving engine of Ada) will cause the language (Ada) to shift to a lower gear and maybe it will even stall... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Hervias **** ******* **** Jet Propulsion Laboratory **** **** *** **** M/S T-1704 **** **** *** **** 4800 Oak Grove Drive *** **** ******* **** Pasadena, CA 91109 *** **** **** ******** email : felipe@triton.jpl.nasa.gov ****** **** ******** voice : (818) 354-0582 >>> Where the future begins <<< fax : (818) 393-4089 ---------------------------------------------------------------------