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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-03 11:43:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!news.worldonline.be!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: 03 Apr 2004 21:46:14 +0200 Organization: Worldonline Belgium Sender: lbrenta@deuteronomy Message-ID: <874qs0zvy1.fsf@insalien.org> References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <406EB6D2.8030801@noplace.com> <87d66pyw1g.fsf@insalien.org> <406EEC35.7040109@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83-134-242-121.lindthout.goplus.fastdsl.tiscali.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.worldonline.be 1081021428 26934 83.134.242.121 (3 Apr 2004 19:43:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldonline.be NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 19:43:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6730 Date: 2004-04-03T21:46:14+02:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic writes: > Standards are a wonderful thing. Everyone should have one of their > own. :-) That's a nice way of describing Sun's policy :) I'm not as diplomatic as you are :) > I'd differ in this respect: What makes something "The Best Tool For > The Job"? Ada is superior in some technical aspects to other languages > such as Java when considering the language definition alone. But if > Ada doesn't provide as much stuff in its toolbox, isn't that in some > respect making it a less satisfactory tool? Or if the implementation > under consideration isn't very good, does it still qualify as the best > tool just because in theory it could be better? One of the nice things with Ada is that several implementations are available and can be evaluated. Surely, one of these implementations will turn out to be the best tool for the job. But, this requires effort to evaluate the compilers and libraries. In my experience, very few people actually make that effort. Do you think they evaluate the Java compiler and library? If they did, they wouldn't use them. > The best tool for the job is the tool that lets me do the job while > optimizing cost, schedule and quality. We tend to be convinced that > Ada offers superior quality when one considers only the language > proper. That may even be true in most cases, but it often ignores cost > and schedule in evaluating "The Best Tool For The Job". "Quality" can I differ in this respect. I find that I am much more productive with Ada than with Java, C++, C or Pascal. With Ada, I spend more time developing and less time debugging. > be a relative thing - do I really need gold-plated screws when I'm > building a birdhouse? Even if Java as a language doesn't detect as > many bugs as does Ada, the presence of a well worn library means I'm > not generating new and potentially buggy code to do the same > thing. Might that not result in a higher quality end product - while > reducing my costs and improving my schedule? Ada has all the libraries needed to get that kind of leverage. The only problem is that these libraries don't come with the compiler, so you have to look for them. Or use Debian :) > People don't select Java because they are fools. They often select > Java over Ada for all sorts of legitimate and important reasons. If > we want to get them selecting Ada over Java, we have to understand > those reasons and come to the table being a better satisfier of > those needs. No, they are not fools. Their legitimate reason for choosing Java is that "everybody uses it", so it is easy for them to find disposable, cheap beginner programmers. They instruct these programmers to deliver buggy code quickly. These beginners are all too happy to use an "easy" and "fashionable" language, which their teachers at school taught them because "the industry demands it" (see the self-fulfilling prophecy there?). Then, when customers complain about the bugs, they blame the developers and fire them. Now is an "urgent" problem, so they quickly hire new apprentices and use them to churn out a new, buggy release that "fixes" the worst bugs while at the same time bringing new ones. In short, their legitimate and important reasons are "job security for managers" and "repeat customers". Development managers want a high price/quality ratio, i.e. a high development price and low quality. Why? Because, by spending lots of money on development, they are important. And by delivering low quality, they can say "See? My budget was too low!", and they can also charge big bucks to customers. In corporations, customers want a high price, because spending lots of money makes them important. But they also want high quality. Once they've paid the big bucks for the expensive software they've selected, they are reluctant to admit that it's buggy or inadequate. Therefore, they pay even more for fixes and upgrades, and eveyone is happy. Except for software developers and end users. The former work under pressure and get all the blame, while the latter have so totally lost confidence in the software that they blame it for everything. -- Ludovic Brenta.