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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful? Date: 1998/08/13 Message-ID: <1998Aug13.194519.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 380925347 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org References: <6qg3on$kjq$2@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> <6qrdn4$4ac@drn.newsguy.com> X-Trace: news.decus.org 903051923 28313 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2] Organization: LJK Software Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , gwinn@ma.ultranet.com (Joe Gwinn) writes: > I recall many stories like this over the decades, starting in the days > when fortran was displacing assembly, and structured programming was just > coming into vogue, and continuing to the present. All good fun, but there > was and is a significant unstated assumption at work: These stories > implicitly assume that all programmers are equally good, leaving only > choice of language to explain the result. In fact, programmer > productivity varies by a factor of ten to one from best to worst, and this > order of magnitude difference will swamp language effects unless one of > the languages is truely unsuited to the task, which isn't usually the > case. > > So, it's at least as likely that you are a much better programmer than > that young whippersnapper, at the very least more experienced, and Ada > versus XXX had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Think of Ada less as a determining factor and more as a litmus test -- the programmer with the good sense to choose Ada is the one with a better understanding of software engineering. Larry Kilgallen