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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-28 08:54:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed0.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:00:49 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3C7E6241.17BFC8E0@adaworks.com> References: <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com> <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com> <250220022121494455%thehouseofcards@remove.this.part.mac.com> <3C7B0B13.3080003@worldnet.att.net> <3C7D1C89.2000803@home.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cd.69 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 28 Feb 2002 16:53:24 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20579 Date: 2002-02-28T16:53:24+00:00 List-Id: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > Jim Rogers wrote: > > > Michael Card wrote: > >> I was wondering why it is perceived as undesirable to train new > >> programmers in Ada? Certainly hiring an experienced S/W engineer who > >> has only done C++ or Java, for example, would not require a significant > >> additional investment to train them in Ada? If teh language really > >> offers benefits, wouldn't those benefits more than offset the > >> relatively small cost of buying 2-3 weeks of intense Ada training for > >> the programmers? > > > > I agree. I have found good C++ programmers to be trainable. > > I watched one pick up the basics of Ada in about 2 weeks with the > > help of "Ada as a Second Language". ... > > So while I agree that an experienced programmer can quickly > embrace Ada and *maintain* existing code, I do believe you > want someone with a bit more experience if he is designing > major subsystems from scratch. Otherwise, you'll have to > allow time for that programmer more time to learn from > his mistakes ;-) This goes to the heart of one of Ada's benefits, not one of its liabilities. In C/C++ a programmer can write code that compiles and seems just fine until one day it explodes quite unexpectedly. Also, "The Devil is in the details," to coin an completely new an wonderful expression. :) At first, it seems so easy to create C++ code. Then, as one gets deeper and deeper into the process, "The Devil" begins to emerge from the Hades populated by "friends," copy constructors, destructors, unhappy pointers, and the host of other little creatures of that realm. This is not to say that C++ is inherently evil. The really experienced C++ programmer can easily tame this collection of Mephistophelian gargoyles, but the new C++ programmer can be easily led astray. The same is true with a new Ada programmer. We simply do not want newbies doing the critical design in a brand-new language regardless of how good that language might be. The benefit of Ada is that newbies are prevented, due to the Draconian constraints of the language, from making the same number of mistakes they might make as a newbie in C++. However, it would be foolish to believe they cannot make mistakes of the same magnitude simply because of those constraints. I believe that, in the long run, Ada is a better language, but newcomers to any language need a lot of adult supervision. Richard Riehle