Re: Joint Strike Fighter

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> A lot of things go into the decision to move to C++. The techies may want it
> because it is what they know or what they want to know for career
> enhancement. Management may favor it because they figure its easier to hire
> people who know C++, it has the appearance of where the computer industry is
> going and "Nobody ever got fired for buying C++..." lemming mentality.

One of the most important benefits of C++ is that, once people have enough
experience with it, it becomes obvious how inherently hideous it is.   For
those with a cursory knowledge of C++, or those whose experience with it
is shallow, the language can look quite appealing.   Only after wrestling with
some of the more entertaining aspects of the language in the production of
large-scale software does one begin to realize that it falls far short of what
they enjoyed with Ada.   I know former Ada software developers who are
now engaged, by managment fiat, in using C++.    They were at first full of
enthusiasm for moving to a better resume-building language.   They looked
at the simple C++ class model and considered it easier to understand than
Ada's package model.  In those early stages, C++ seemed more accessible.

Ahhhh, but "the devil is in the details."    The more preceptive among them
eventually discover that whoever said, "C++ is its own virus" was on to
something.  Unfortunately, once they have committed to a particular
course of action, they are stuck with it.   It is too late for "buyer's remorse"

to sve them.  I believe it was Thorsten Veblen who used the phrase,
"Caveat Emptor," to describe this situation.  It makes one wonder whether
those who are willing to risk using C++ for a safety-critical project are
"playing dice with the universe."

Richard Riehle