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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,751584f55705ddb7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems
Date: 1996/02/21
Message-ID: <312B0B0A.2D2@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140403685
references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <824056183.18993@assen.demon.co.uk> <4fnqpm$3nh@news.sanders.lockheed.com>
 <adaworksDn1qGp.K2K@netcom.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

AdaWorks wrote:
> 
>   So what is the criteria you use for selecting a programming environment?
>   The overriding issue is whether one wants a language in which the compiler
>   catches most of the errors.  If the answer is, "Yes," the correct choice
>   is Ada.  If it is, "No," use something else.

Actually, I think you short-change Ada here. Another question to ask is: Who will
need to read the software?

I have been very impressed with the readability of (well-written) Ada, particularly
by non-software engineers. If a hardware engineer wants to read our software to
understand how it manipulates the hardware, he can read it with only infrequent
access to any manuals, etc. If a system test engineer wants to read our software
to understand a data structure or algorithm, no problem. Even a (shudder) customer
with little software expertise can review our code and understand with very little
assistance.

I have also seen these same engineers presented with a C++ program. First, out come the
manuals...