Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B559E79.F21DBE5C@earthlink.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > Comparing the difference between Ada and C++ to the difference between
> > a higher level language and assembly is very silly.  It reeks of the
> > arrogance that I am describing.  Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> No, your question is bogus and the point proven is not what you think. 
> Here again is your original question:
> 

Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.

> "What class(es) of programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."
> 
> Any computable problem can be solved by an appropriately programmed
> Turing Machine (TM).  Programming language constructs can be converted
> into TM instructions (albeit very long and tedious ones). Therefore a
> C++ to TM compiler, an Ada to TM compiler, or an Assembly language to TM
> compiler, can solve any computable problem.
> 

Of course this is true but there are certain problems that are solved
more "productively" with certain languages as opposed to other
languages.

> That you asked this question demonstrates that you do not understand
> computability.  Therefore asking to compare programming languages (of
> any level) in terms of what can or cannot be programmed using them is
> (very) silly.  They are TM-equivalent.
> 

All this to put someone down.  I suggest you read my post again and
don't quote it out of context.  It's very simple really, all one has
to do is indicate some hard evidence that developers are significantly
more productive with Ada 95 than say C++.  Do you have anything
besides your opinions?


> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com