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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,25e04fdf1f6a0cca
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.236.198 with SMTP id uw6mr5741676pbc.3.1334438161749;
        Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni56597pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:08:09 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: need help. plz !
References: <403510.511.1334402956768.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbut24>
 <jmcgvf$oin$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
In-Reply-To: <jmcgvf$oin$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
Message-ID: <4f89e739$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Apr 2012 23:08:09 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: ee11c803.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=]PUij4EYihI6PJ?[X6JIXEA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK@:>SDEfdW7FPCY\c7>ejVHY6dc>QJWg9NH_TjKmf2G1I
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-14T23:08:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14.04.12 20:50, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 04:29 AM, plink wrote:
>>
>> am i on right tracks ???
>> is ada best for "live" linux os aplications (robotics)??
>
> Ada was created for embedded mission-critical S/W; that is, embedded S/W that has to work correctly. If having your S/W work correctly is important, then Ada is a good choice. If not, then you'll probably be happy with another language.

It may be an important design goal that your software does _not_
work flawlessly and still you'll be better off using a language
made for correctness (the concept is related to "planned obsolescence").
For example, some amount of erratic behavior might be a means
of making a software update more attractive to customers.
Building software with this in mind might actually have reputable
reasons. For example, to keep a system open to changes.

You'd then want to built mistakes into the software, but in such
a way that fixing them is easy, costs little, and can be planned.
If, instead, the erratic behavior just happens, because it is a
consequence of the features of the language (difficult to get right,
prone to programmer error), you'd be wasting time and money because
it is difficult to replace the planned mistakes for exactly these
reasons (difficult to get right, prone to programmer error).