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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 14:17:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news.bu.edu!inmet!not-for-mail From: Tucker Taft Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:08:47 -0400 Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Message-ID: <3B55FADF.48018367@avercom.net> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <9j1uio$8br$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.24.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 995490582 28681 192.168.24.34 (18 Jul 2001 21:09:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2001 21:09:42 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10206 Date: 2001-07-18T21:09:42+00:00 List-Id: codesavvy wrote: > > I don't care if you think I'm trolling, I'm not. I think the answer > is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is substantially > better than what C++ offers. Ada compilers catch a much larger number of errors at compile-time than C++ compilers. That is the major advantage, in my view. Furthermore, Ada programs can say "more" things which are checked by the compiler (such as numeric type distinctions, index type for arrays, generic formal parameter requirements, etc.), so that not only does an Ada compiler catch more errors, programmers can make more compile-time distinctions which helps reduce subsequent "bit decay" during maintenance. The net effect is that Ada programs tend to be much more "solid" in terms of bugs/line over their lifetime. Or equivalently, it costs significantly less to get an Ada system to the required level of quality, because the language and the tools help minimize the number of bugs that make it into the test and integration phase. > ... I've read posts in this news group that > extoll Ada for it's many virtues but the truth of the matter is that > they are overrated if they exist at all. Are there any statistics > that state that Ada leads to more reliable, maintainable, or robust > code than does C++? Yes, there are several studies which confirm that test and integration requires much less time with Ada systems, and that error rates are lower after deployment. Certainly anecdotal evidence in companies that do projects in both languages is that, even with the exact same programming staff, Ada systems generally have lower error rates and/or higher overall design-to-deployment productivity. > ... What class(es) of programming problems does Ada > solve that C++ can't? Safety critical systems, where you can't afford to be debugging in the "field." -- -Tucker Taft stt@avercom.net http://www.avercom.net Chief Technology Officer, AverCom Corporation (A Titan Company) Bedford, MA USA (AverCom was formerly the Commercial Division of AverStar: http://www.averstar.com/~stt)