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: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public From: Ola Liljedahl Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/15 Message-ID: <369EC6D8.40E3B5A0@enea.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432826367 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369CAB38.404C0610@praxis-cs.co.uk> <369CBD49.C686157D@pwfl.com> <369DECA9.44959773@enea.se> <369E0EA2.1AFB1C1E@pwfl.com> To: diespammer@pwfl.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Enea OSE Systems AB Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > > Now here's a question: Just because you are making throw-away code, is > there some reason that you *can't* do that in Ada? You don't need the > advantages of maintainability or reusability, but maybe you could take > advantage of the reliability, etc. which might mean your apps would ship > with fewer bugs. Granted, you may never intend to fix the bugs, but it > would seem that software with a reputation for fewer bugs ought to have > a competitive edge over less reliable products. Throw-away code yes but still high quality developed in very short time (time to market is always decreasing). And possibly Ada IS this proper tool making it possible for you to be first (and best) every time. My posting did actually try to say two different things: first C is not last years language hype but unusable today (to the contrary) and second you might not need to reuse your code for decades, for some projects it IS actually ok to use this year's language hype if this tool chain as a whole will get you to the goal faster. These two points are not related or maybe they are anti-related. > > I know of no reason why applications developed in C cannot be done > equally as well or better in Ada. I do not find C to be somehow > inherently "faster" in development time. If anything, I find it slower. > And even when I've got development of throw-away code going on, I've > found that development gets significantly leveraged by the presence of > lots of Ada utility packages we've got lying around here which would be > difficult to duplicate in C. I've got metrics that have demonstrated > faster development time for Ada vs C and I know that there have been a > number of studies in both acedemia and industry which back that claim > up. What kind of utility packages? -- Ola Liljedahl olli@enea.se