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: 103376,411186037d1bc912 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Some questions about Ada. Date: 1996/05/09 Message-ID: <3192537C.3F30@io.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 154108965 references: <3188F63D.3325@io.com> <318E4BB5.2BE2@trw.com> cc: davedave@io.com content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: PSI Public Usenet Link mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I) Date: 1996-05-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew M. Lih wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > > My opinion: Ada95 is the best all-around language for software engineering. > > C++ is awful. Nevertheless, if I were starting a project today, I would > > probably choose to use C++. Why?: More (and better and cheaper) tools are > > available for C++, more programmers are trained to program in C++, et cetera. > > Your statement perplexes me. If Ada95 is the best language, I would hope > that means it's more "cost-effective" than other languages. By itself, Ada is more "cost-effective" than most other languages (by themselves). However, there are some other factors to consider: Is the institution funding your project going to give you the time and money necessary to train programmers *properly* in Ada? Probably not. Will the institution funding your project be happy about paying $3000 for an Ada development tool which is not as good as a C++ development tool that costs $500? Probably not. I agree with those who say that, in the *long* run, using Ada would save a company money. However, the bean counters that you rely on for your funding aren't thinking that way. They want to save money *now* (In fact, at most companies, they *need* to save money now, or they could lose their jobs. Sadly, most companies punish managers for thinking ahead, and reward them for "living for the day".) > (Use C++ > for argument's sake.) But your statement effectively says this is outweighed > by the tool factor and training factor, and other minor issues. I could > argue against this, but I guess my question is really "How good does > Ada have to be to outweigh the popularity of C++?" An interesting question. First of all, we have to realize that C++ and Ada actually fulfill slightly different roles: C++ is an improved version of C which was designed to be a portable replacement for Assembler. C and C++ have, in fact, fulfilled their design goals: They are now the most popular languages for applications which used to be developed in Assembler (shrink-wrap software, system-level programming, high-speed routines, etc.). Ada, on the other hand, was designed to replace languages like Jovial, Pascal and COBOL. Ada has succeeded fairly well in more "technical" areas like the aerospace/defense industry. However, in the area of business applications, Ada has largely lost out to the 4GLs (here in the U.S. -- things are different in Europe). The same can be said of other well-designed languages like Modula-3 and Eiffel. For Ada to become as popular as C/C++, one of two things needs to happen: 1) A "paradigm shift" will have to take place in the programming community: Developers will have to realize that improved compilers and high-speed CPUs mean that there is no longer a need for a language to offer them the same power/flexibility that Assembler does. They will then be more likely to concentrate on things like reliability and maintainability. If this happens, then Ada will have a chance to compete directly with C/C++ on its home turf. 2) Someone needs to develop a Delphi-like application based on Ada. They will have to sell it at a reasonable price (less than $300). This will allow Ada to compete with the 4GLs. -- Dave Jones davedave@io.com