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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.11.194 with SMTP id 42mr4020579yhx.19.1414532268695; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:37:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.79.170 with SMTP id k10mr114533igx.12.1414532268603; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!s7no1240424qap.0!news-out.google.com!ks2ni4879igb.0!nntp.google.com!h15no1052156igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <220f97ab-9aa2-4961-b140-2b271c3ab99a@googlegroups.com> <99759c3f-a35f-4745-a8fd-2fb6ab6fb1aa@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <48dc1630-8e7d-4e29-8bdd-53d74932d9d0@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: F-22 ADA Programming From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:37:48 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 4263 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3831268621 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22876 Date: 2014-10-28T14:37:47-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:06:23 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 10/28/2014 11:37 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >=20 > > I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen= posted in this newsgroup. >=20 > Thanks! I think Botton may be right about the time machine, though. I was= mainly > playing devil's advocate, but there are ethical issues in language choice= . I apologize--I may have taken you too literally. > The ethics of taking a job using a lousy language vs suffering unemployme= nt may > not be significant. It's certainly not on a par with collaborating with N= azis > and remaining alive vs certain death. >=20 > But what about when the S/W is to provide secure network communications o= r to > control a self-driving car? Then those who choose to use the lousy langua= ge are > at least partly responsible for the billions in financial consequences of= a > security vulnerability, or the deaths due to a S/W error. The ethical > significance of the choice seems much greater. I don't know--I see it differently. Consider this situation: You're an exp= ert programmer skilled at both Ada and C++. You have been offered a positi= on working on the software for a self-driving car. The code will be in C++= . You will not be in charge of the project and will not have the power to = change the language decision. Which is more ethical: (1) Turn down the job; (2) Accept the position, and plan to use the skills you possess in writing = safe, secure code, to influence the rest of the team to adopt coding (and t= esting) practices that result in code that's as reliable as anything writte= n in Ada would be. If the team would be writing sketchy code without your presence, would it r= eally be more ethical to turn down the job, let them foist unsafe cars on t= he market, and then say "Well, they've caused six deaths, but hey, my hands= are clean because I had nothing to do with that project"?? I'm not so sur= e. (And if anyone believes #2 is impossible, because the C++ language somehow = emits unsafeness waves that travel through the air and into your monitor a= nd turn all your carefully-written safe code into unsafe code ... OK, I'm b= eing silly, but that just isn't correct. That's one of the reasons I react= ed so strongly to Jeff's earlier post, because it seemed to equate using an= unsafe language to writing unsafe code, which of course is wrong. You can= write safe code in any language. It may take a little more work in some l= anguages; but if you're aware of the need to write safe code, and are disci= plined, it can be done. And if you're not, Ada isn't going to help.) -- Adam