Re: Ada The Best Language?

[codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy)]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3B56D060.EF478F36@earthlink.net>...
> codesavvy wrote:
> > 
> > Questions regarding productiviy are bogus? Of course you ignore the
> > other question that pertains to the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Of course I ignored the questions to which I was not responding, I
> conscientiously chose to respond only to the..yes..bogus question you
> asked:

I'm glad you're admitting that you are purposely distorting the intent
of what I wrote.

> > 
> > > "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.
> 
> Oh, did I misread the question?  I thought it said "What class(es) of
> programming problems does Ada solve that C++ can't."--which is a bogus
> question. I didn't realize that what that meant was "What class(es) of
> programming problems does Ada solve more productively than C++".
> 

It's not a bogus question when you answer it in the context of my
post.  Many other people understood but you didn't.  That's ok you
don't have to.

> > > 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 commend you on your perception.
> 
> comp.lang.ada is a technical newsgroup that is patronized by both a
> large number of highly experienced, knowledgable software professionals
> as well as less experienced individuals that are seeking to learn more. 
> A newcomer to the group then announces him or herself by making demands
> for metrics and studies and dismisses as unsupported opinion the
> millenia of hard-earned experience held by its participants, asks bogus
> questions indicating a flawed understanding of computability, and makes
> assertions that are glaringly false--such as compiler and platform ports
> being very rare.
> 

So you make the final decision on what is appropriate and what is not.
 I don't think that you've been appointed to such a position.  As far
as metrics vs. "hard-earned" experience (a nebulous concept at best) I
believe that one of the problems with the software development
community is that there is too much qualitative analysis and too
little quantitative analysis.  I haven't made any accusations that are
glaringly false nor have I made any bogus assertions.  As far as
compiler platform ports, you offer little evidence to support your
claim and thus it amounts to only an opinion that you have.  It seems
that your main interest is in conducting a flame war.  I'm not
interested though but thanks for playing.
> > Do you have anything besides your opinions?
> 
> A rap across the snout with a newspaper is not out of order.
> 
> Marc A. Criley
> Senior Staff Engineer
> Quadrus Corporation
> www.quadruscorp.com