Re: F-22 ADA Programming

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

> Surely if the language is chosen by management, they share in the responsibility
> for its effect. A developer who agrees to work on the project using the poor
> language has made a decision to do so, and is clearly responsible for that decision.

Sorry, I got lost in this. I mean - in the taking responsibility part.
Does it mean that if we choose Ada and then shit happens, are we cleared from responsibility, because the choice was good?

The difference between Ada and C++ is not that in Ada there will be no bugs and in C++ there will be only bugs. At best, the language choice will have some influence on the probability and economy of failure. So, let's say (just for the sake of discussion, with no regard to how ridiculous it got already) that with C++ the probability of project failure is 30% and with Ada the probability of project failure is 20%. I don't care if these numbers reflect reality.

a) And I choose C++. And then shit happens. Am I responsible? To what extent?

b) And I choose Ada. And then shit happens. Am I responsible? To what extent?

Are you ready to throw some numbers or can we agree that the discussion went out of control and the whole responsibility argument is just nonsense?

On the other hand, I can imagine a world where programmers are covered by civil responsibility insurance (just like in many other industries) and insurance companies will offer insurance discounts to better programmers (just as they do to people with good car driving history or with no smoking habits, etc.). And then, it will be in the interest of programmers to stick to technologies that allow them pay less for insurance (ultimately, programmers that stick to good technologies will be also cheaper to hire, as their insurance will be levied on employers anyway).
So, when the manager says "this project will be written in C++", the programmer will answer "this will cost me/you more in insurance, better switch to Ada" and then the manager will go back to his Excel to rethink his choices. Insurance companies would then make sure that primes are periodically reviewed and reflect the actual industry failure rates, which will allow good technologies to bubble up and shitware sink down.
Would that work? I was elaborating on this idea several times and it makes sense to me, as it puts money into the equation just as it already does in many other parts of our life. If my insurance company cares about me doing proper technical service of my car, it might as well guide me in the choice of my programming language, there is really little difference here.

But until this (or something equivalent) happens, please don't argue that the programmer is responsible for his language choices, as such argument has no tangible (and countable) foundations. It's just hand-waving.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com