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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10fec3,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid10fec3,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 108a70,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108a70,public X-Google-Thread: 111308,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid111308,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-15 21:04:59 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cyberspace.com!cyberspace.com!not-for-mail From: rtfm@cyberspace.com (Dan Thies) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle,comp.client-server Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle,comp.client-server Date: 15 Nov 1994 20:58:42 -0800 Organization: Cyberlink Communications (206) 281-5397 Message-ID: <3ac3i2$48i@case.cyberspace.com> References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3aa7jo$7j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: case.cyberspace.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.ada:16728 comp.lang.c:68650 comp.programming:12820 comp.lang.c++:79011 comp.object:17432 comp.databases.sybase:13030 comp.databases.oracle:22255 comp.client-server:6846 Date: 1994-11-15T20:58:42-08:00 List-Id: David Weller (dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote: : I don't know which of the newsgroups you wrote this from, but the answer is definitely YES. This article did not merit such a broad cross-posting. In fact, the only subject large enough to merit that will probably be the day that the world government announces that all programming languages except SNOBOL are to be banned forever. : I disagree here. For two reasons: 1) Ada developers aren't "rare", : just less visible. Unfortunately, I know LOTS of ex-Ada people stuck : in C++ jobs that would jump to Ada again if they could. 2) It's "C" : developers that are "all over the place". There is, from my personal : observation, a dearth of C++ developers. Many companies are hiring C : programmers now and training them in C++. I agree with Bill Beckwith : here -- it takes less time to create a productive Ada developer than : it does to create a productive C++ developer, even if they only have : a C background. There are not a lot of Ada developers. There are not a lot of developers working with OO languages, period. It will take time for the educational systems of the world to catch up. In the meantime I think it is absolutely true that it takes less time to "create" a productive Ada developer, simply because of Ada's high level of abstraction. Even when I am working in C++, I use Ada as pseudo-code because it's easier to write it that way. : >Therefore, most of the time, my customers want the product in C or : >C++. The price of software is not how much it costs to develop it, but how : >much it costs to maintain it. If I can't find a developer who knows the : >language it was developed in, then I chose the wrong language no matter how : >cheap the initial development was. Oh, and personally I'd choose smalltalk This is rich. Customers want the product in an executable form, and don't have the slightest idea with C or C++ even looks like. Customers also want maintainability, even if they don't know it when the project starts off. : Boy, I"m confused. You mean to tell me that it's LESS expensive to : use a langauge that has been empirically proven to be less reliable, : because it's cheaper to find/train a developer in that language? Why : not get a language that provides more maintainable code, thus : requiring less people (which is the REAL cost factor). The company I work for is going through major hassles (have been for a long time) over all of the software systems we are using. The main issue is that no update ever fixes all the old bugs, and every update adds new bugs. A lot of the software we use has to function in real time, such as cash registers. I think that the inherent confirmability of Ada would have eliminated a lot of the recurring and new bugs. I am certain that a more competent C developer would not have so many problems, but it would be easier to deliver the goods using Ada. : Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada And all those years I was stuck with C, it was right there under my nose. Dan rtfm@cyberspace.com -- rtfm@cyberspace.com