Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)]

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message news:<9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net>...
> From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> > is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> > in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.
> >
> From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
> sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.
> 

Didn't say this at all.  Here's what I wrote:

For a programming language to be considered vastly superior (many Ada
advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I believe that
developers utilizing the language should show a substantial increase
in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of programming problems
that another language can't.

Nowhere did I write something about "allowing you to do almost
anything."  I don't see how I can make myself clearer but I'll try. 
Where is the proof that Ada offers software developers a substantial
increase in productivity and/or solves a class(es) of programming
problems that another language can't.  I also wrote:

I know the second reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is
vastly superior for all programming problems but it is something to
consider.

I realize that a language may provide solutions for a class of
programming problems but this does not make it a better language
necessarily.


> In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
> doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing, (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
> certainly Ada shines over all others. If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand its value.
> 

Au contraire.  Let me refer you to the first portion of the response I
gave:

______________________________________________________________________________
Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
in my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I'm perfectly willing to accept the criteria you mention as making Ada
a better language than C++.  However, I don't think the things you
mention provide a great deal more productivity.  As a strawman let's
define productivity as number of hours per function point that yields
less than or equal to a given defect rate per hour of acceptance
testing.  For example:

Say a developer is equally competant in Ada 95 and C++. Say this
developer uses C++ and takes 40 hours of a developers time per
function point that yield a defect rate of 1 defect per 40 hours of
testing.  Could you reasonably expect the same developer to take only
20 hours per function point that yields a defect rate of 1 defect per
40 hours of testing?  I sincerely doubt it but I could convinced
otherwise.

> Some people like to chase bugs with a debugger; I even know some people who always run their programs the first time under the
> debugger, because they are sure that they will need it anyway. My personal pleasure is to take a good time understanding and
> defining what I really want to do, then write it, being happy that the compiler doesn't let me go with the various misunderstandings
> I've made in my design, finally get a succesful compilation. Run the tests - it's OK. Next problem.


This seems to be suggesting that you feel that there are great
productivity gains in using Ada.  Where is the proof that this is
indeed the case?  What studies have been done to demonstrate this? 
Using Ada is no guarentee that developers won't write crappy,
unmanagable code, and unmaintainable code.

> ---------------------------------------------------------
>            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
> Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr