Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?

[n_brunot@my-deja.com]

In article <937jvn$si3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > This is one of the portable way. a way is the ONLY way only
> > until someone find an other one ...
>
> Nope, it is the ONLY portable way, then and now.

Most people who find interesting new things are the ones who don't trust
this kind of assertion :-)

> Furthermore, there are severe performance penalties in the
> Java approach, so severe in practice that the normal approach
> on the x86, where the fpt rules of Java are a disaster, is
> simply to ignore these rules, and do floating-point operations
> in a manner that is not comaptible with the Java rules.

This is very often used explanation ...
Ada detractors used exactly the same not so long ago ...
And as far as ftp is concerned, let's not talk again about that for gnat ...
there is enough in threads archives ...


> > From what I know, they usually deal with big projects, and a
> > very small portion of their code consists in pragma import.
>
> Well you don't know enough, and that is false :-)
>
> > I mean comparing with what is done in more usual development
> > that is done in C or in Java.
>
> Sounds like you have a rather narrow view, especially if you
> lump C and Java together in this respect.
>

> > So they fall completely out the field I was talking about,
>
> No they don't.

I you say so, it must obviously be true ... :-)
By the way, we can wonder if you have any idea of non Ada developments
which are (from what I now ...) quite common in software programing.

> > Companies developping products making a very wide use of C
> > libraries don't use Ada,
>
> A false generalization, there are many exceptions.

And as usual, exceptions confirm the rule :-)
The percentage of companies non using Ada is high enough just to make
obvious the generalization.



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/