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=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 22 Sep 92 17:23:53 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.co m!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: The trouble with Ada... (60 lines) Message-ID: <1992Sep22.172353.23907@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: In <15467@suns4.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes: >The trouble with Ada is that it exposes poor software engineers >and project managers. >Ok. What do I mean? >I've been in the software engineering business for about 10 years >now. I've seen, and worked on, some very good software systems. >I've seen, and worked on, some awful ones. >It's been my experience that the difference between a good and >bad software system has a lot to do with the quality of the >software project management. >Most good systems gave a lot of thought to the system design, >and then a lot of management effort was expended to keep >that design on track. Usually the best method to keep >the project "good" was to make the "good" way the easy way; >that is make it easier for programmers to use "good" practice >than to just "hack and slay". >Most bad systems had almost no thought about design at all, >and even where there was such thought, the project manager >quickly lost control. >Ok, so we all knew all that, and what did I mean about Ada >exposing poor software engineers and managers? >I've found that if you ask someone to do something they can't do >or don't want to do, then instead of telling you they can't do it, >they _pretend_ to be getting on with it. Most of the time, they >actually aren't pretending (that's what makes it so hard to spot), >they actually are working very hard, and even believe that they are >doing good work. >Thing is what they tend to be doing is coding and testing the "easy >bit" of the job. In fact they will, given the chance, use all the project >time doing the bit they knew how to do; they won't address the >"difficult bit" at all. Other than the first paragraph, I can agree with you up to this point. >Now when you use 'C' as the coding language, it's very easy >to give the illusion of actually doing useful work, when in >fact all you are doing is tracking down silly coding errors. And now we get down to the stupid, language bashing part. Look. If you're so upset that C is orders of magnitude more popular and accepted in the general computing community than is Ada, that's fine. But don't try to dress your prejudices up in technical clothes and submit them as 'proof'. You can 'hack' in any language, and bad code can be written in every language. Convincing yourself that Ada is some kind of 'magic bullet' is a good way to produce some bad code. >In Ada, those coding errors are quickly exposed by the compiler. >Worse, it's actually difficult when using Ada to write any code >at all if you don't have a very good idea about the total >design. That means you have to address the "difficult bit" first. >(I think that's what Ada was all about!) Not at all. You do it wrong just the way you would do it wrong in C; divide the problem into sub-parts and then do the easy ones. >So, what happens? Well, instead of addressing the problem, producing >the design and finally coding (in Ada), the programmers sit around >and look for ways not to use Ada. As their managers don't see >the real problem, they are soon convinced that it's all Adas fault >and they start looking for waivers. Yeah, sure they do. You know, for something that can't possibly work, there sure seems to be an awful lot more functioning software written in C than in Ada. >Paul >-- >+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+ >+ Paul Goffin + Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K. +44 442 230000x3357 + >+ + Opinions expressed are mine! (Yours for a small fee) + >+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+ I think the fee I paid for your opinion in this case is just about what it was worth. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.