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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed1.swip.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:17:06 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OpenSSL development (Heartbleed) References: <-OGdnezdYpRWFc_OnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com> <535297f1$0$6715$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <5352a76f$0$6720$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <3ZSdnd4A49AxV8_OnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5352da76$0$6701$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <53538283$0$6715$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2014 10:17:07 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: a700ef5c.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=CaJB9A9\n1fg`45cDR8l?oA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kFd2bknPCY\c7>ejVhoGHV1S8c2`o7T[`o5l:fCg X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19465 Date: 2014-04-20T10:17:07+02:00 List-Id: On 19/04/14 22:53, Alan Browne wrote: > Now, do you really think the industry will change to something more formalized and requirements driven? Use Ada as a fundamental building block of it? Where C (or no S/E) is being used, directly, or indirectly by using libraries written in C, the industry seems stuck in a loop of at least (1) self-referential confirmation, (2) insufficient irritation caused by C (or lack of S/E), and (3) sufficient competitive equality. One faint hope that I currently maintain is that some BigCo, not the industry, might produce a change to using C. The change might be like the ones just now performed in the case of hugely popular languages: PHP might become Hack everywhere because Facebook has produced Hack by "enhancing" PHP; Microsoft has already produced C#, VB#, etc., by "enhancing" each of the respective assimilated languages; Apple's "enhanced" C in Objective-C is already far above what the C standard requires of an implementation if seen through the lenses of their static analyzer. Google makes their talented staff spend some "free" time on "enhancing" the special qualities of JavaScript. And the results are all free, working, and ubiquitous. Suppose something similar happens in the C world. Apparently, all it takes is hiring a few smart compiler writers and have them "enhance" the popular language C in such a way that C programmers can simply enjoy the new features whenever they wish. (Intel?, Freescale?) To elaborate, for the sake of completeness only, the claims of (1), (2), and (3), (1) As long as the company does not go bankrupt, and the project's goal was not entirely missed, choosing C is justified. So, project management can confirm that it was the right choice, obviously. So does everyone. (2) It is well known that: "Software has bugs." "Tom De Marco says that the effect of language is <= 5%, so why bother." Studies comparing the effects of languages or methods are rare. They seem to be interpreted by shooting from the hip or in other surprising ways[*]. If effects of bugs can be handled by customer care, then C's features may be seen as causing costly bugs, however the pressure isn't high enough. Internally, excuses are at hand. (Not the least of which is "A..... 5!") (3) By simple arithmetic, if all the competition is using C (or no S/E), everyone incurs the same cost, yet there is return on investment. Consequently, then, using C (or no S/E) does not cause any relative economic disadvantage. Whereas investing in different technology is associated with risk, education, and other cost factors. Who is going to start an initiative, then, and why? __ [*] One anecdote I heard was about two teams, one using C++, the other using SPARK, programming to the same specification for one year. Either team could use a simulator. The teams were tasked with producing programs for driving a test device. The C++ team debugged their software into existence, frequently testing in the simulator. The SPARK team first found a bug in the specification, then went on to prove software into existence, hardly if ever using the simulator. Finally, the C++ team had implemented 80% of the features. Some bugs were found in the final product. The SPARK team had implemented 100% of the features (close to closing time). No bugs were found in the final product. Interpretation of the result: Use of the approach of C++ is preferable since project management then does not suffer a heart attack because they have no facts to report while the project is underway.