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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a34898f29070a9d2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: porco@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco)
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
Date: 1998/07/29
Message-ID: <6pmanb$6qu$1@agate.berkeley.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 375892436
References: <35BCF867.E7EA0EF0@catalina-inter.net>
 <6pm0aq$8bu$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>
Organization: Statistics Dept., U. C. Berkeley
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <6pm0aq$8bu$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Robert B. Love  <rlove@antispam.neosoft.com> wrote:
>In <35BCF867.E7EA0EF0@catalina-inter.net> "Chris Sparks (aka Mr. Ada)" 
>wrote:
>> to quote "BAD" examples of C++ usage on projects.

>> Examples I have seen are:
>>   Navy plight with Windows NT
>>   Colorado Airport baggage snafu

>If memory serves, the language used in the Denver baggage system had
>nothing to do with the problem.  The system was poorly designed, it
>ran open loop and used timing to know when bags were in a certain area,
>not a sensor.  As much as I'm pro Ada I can't see blaming the choice
>of C++.  Double check this.

>Of course you could say anyone silly enough to try this open loop
>strategy would be silly enough to use C++ but I wouldn't go that
>far.

Aside from the Joyner paper, which I'm sure you've seen, I don't know
of much.  There is very little good data on programming languages,
and a lot of hot air (computing is very emotional).  I only do small
time one-person stuff, where programmer time is at a premium, and I
learned a long time ago that (1) programming is extremely demanding,
and (2) anything that lightens the load is a big help.  

So I won't
do imperative programming in anything other than Ada; the attention
to readability and "human factors" in general in the language design
is a Good Thing!  (We need _a priori_ reasons for language choice,
since there is no good data; to me, one significant fact about Ada
is the fact that human factors played a conscious role in the design.)

When Ada83 first came out, a lot of hackers rejected it because of
its complexity, and association with the military (the notion of 
"private" types was particularly offensive to some people).  But a few
years later, after straining at this gnat, they swallowed a camel:
C--.  I made a real effort to learn C++, spending all together several
months, and it's just too difficult to bother with; the juice isn't
worth the squeeze.  That's just one person's self-selected testimonial,
so it's not worth diddly-squat as data, but there you have it.  

-- 
Travis      **standard disclaimers apply**

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly
is to fill the world with fools."  --Herbert Spencer