Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

<33A7FBFF.29D2@mitre.org> <5o9eca$aoi$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>

On 19 Jun 1997 11:14:45 +0200, Steve Jones - JON
<jon@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> wrote:

> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> writes:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > 
> >     Mem_Map: Integer;
> >     for Mem_Map'Address use 16#B010_0040#;
> >   begin
> >     Mem_Map := 16#0034_4556#;"
> 
> This reminds me of afriend working on the Madrid train system who was
> informed that he wouldn't be able to write the controller software in
> Ada because Ada couldn't handle hardware correctly.  My mate disagreed
> and was given dispensation to prove it.  On one side a team of three
> in C, on the other a rather good Ada programmer.
> 
> Guess which one came in first and had the least bugs ?  The timescale
> differences were very large, mainly because using the Tasking model
> the hardware interupts could be abstracted away.
> 
> I think Ada's problem here is that no one who has used C actually
> belives that a language that incorporates data hiding and strong SE
> principles can also access the bare metal effectively. Maybe Ada was
> just a little too good.

Many of us would appreciate it if this could get into the Ada success
stories at AdaHome and the AdaIC (with a lot more detail and supporting
facts).

Thank you, Wolf in France.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/