Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64bitaddressing and OOP

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: soft-eng [mailto:softeng3456@netscape.net]
>
> > But having them directly in the language itself makes
> > just learning the basic language unnecessarily harder.
> > And the trouble is, you don't get anything really
> > worthwhile out of all the time you spend on
> > mastering all that syntax.  You would have
> > been better off mastering concepts instead.

You are missing an important point, one that very likely
is not important to you, but which is important for the
development of large-scale, safety-critical software
with a programming team.

Those built-in features you disparage are designed to
work together so the compiler can detect inconsistencies,
errors, and omissions.   This is not as easy to accomplish
with those other languages you favor since there is none
of the capability for such thorough checking.  For example,
Ada has built-in tasking.   When using C++, I am required
to use external libraries.  The C++ environment does not
do the kind of careful evaluation of my use of those external
libraries that I enjoy in Ada.  Therefore, my confidence in
the overall compatibility of my design is less than it would
be in a system of comparable size in Ada.

The level of compiler-based checking possible in Ada does
not exist in C++, Java, or most other competing languages.
This is why Ada remains the most appropriate language
when one is concerned with software safety.  Unless you
have experience developing in this environment, you are
likely to have little appreciation for this level of rigor. Those
who have enjoyed Ada's benefits in developing software
will attest to its power.

Richard Riehle