Re: Any research putting c above ada?

[Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com>]

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> 
> On 11 Apr 1997 14:02:35 +0200, Steve Jones - JON
> <jon@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> >C is popular, it is quick and dirty, but I wouldn't like to trust my life to
> >it.
> 
> I wouldn't trust my life to software that was written in such a way that
> it required the compiler to guarantee that it was safe.  If you can write
> safe software, you don't need to have the compiler covering your ass.
> I've seen more bad code written because "the compiler will catch it".
> 
> I've written bullet-proof code for spacecraft and medical systems, code
> that must not under any circumstances fail in any but known and controlled
> ways.  I've done it FORTRAN, C, C++, and assembler (not necessarily
> combined).  It's not the language or the compiler that makes it safe, it's
> the programmer.

It's all of the above and more (don't forget the operating system/
kernel
and operating environment.)

But this isn't really the point.  A very small fraction of software is
actually built according to the highest safety critical standards (level
A, where an error results in loss of life), even when it should be.
Look at the pathetic automotive industry, for example.

Further, even where safety criticality is not at issue, we still want
our software to be highly reliable.  Even for an ATM, spreadsheet, or
for that matter a game.  We pay good money for these things or spend
good time working with them, and we want them to be highly reliable.

But most software is hacked by average programmers with ordinary tools, 
not in a rigorous environment implied by your anectdotal bullet-proof
code.

It seems to me we are much better off in a world where our tools improve
the average and raise the lowest common denominator which ultimately 
causes an across-the-board improvement in our minimal standards and
expectations.

You can argue that Ada doesn't accomplish this goal comparative to C
or C++ (having spent a lot of time developing in all three, I have to
heartily disagree, but never mind.)  However, I can't see how one can
argue that we aren't all better off having better tools in everyone's
toolchest to give us a better chance of solving more problems 
satisfactorily.  You may be the world's finest programmer, but unless
you personally write all software that will ever effect your life, 
then you are better off if the tools (and methods, and operating
systems, and languages, etc.) used by the computing community improve
to reduce the introduction of as many errors in as many situations
as possible.

I can cook very well if I take the time and effort to do it right,
but sometimes I want to go to a restaurant.  I will eat with more
pleasure knowing that the kitchen has been certified to meet the
proper standards for water temperature (for cleaning), for 
cleanliness, for food storage, that they buy their food from
the best and freshest sources, and that they have the best
equipment to do the job.  Of course, I also want the cook to be
well trained and innately talented, but that in and of itself isn't 
quite enough, at least to ensure that I won't walk away feeling
sick or dissatisfied.

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com