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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1d52a75fd633fefc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-16 07:15:53 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!diablo.theplanet.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!news.lattis.xara.net!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada to C++ translator? Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:55:54 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <96jf3r$i3d$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3A844255.24A4DBA3@lmco.com> <968vnc$5a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A8C6843.B46006D6@lmco.com> <96j1bo$723@news.kvaerner.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 982335419 18541 136.170.200.133 (16 Feb 2001 14:56:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2001 14:56:59 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5301 Date: 2001-02-16T14:56:59+00:00 List-Id: "Ken Garlington" wrote in message news:e%9j6.251$uU2.28276829@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > Don't expect C++ to have better productivity numbers than C? Seems like a > statement that needs to be defended with data to me... > > IMO, this thread is one of the reasons why Ada is so hard to sell. There are > so many claims that Ada is "obviously" better than all other options in all > other circumstances that it makes me cringe. Don't get me wrong -- I love > Ada -- but advocates hype it so hard that it sounds like used-car salesmen. > We have built products in both C and Ada; our data doesn't show a *12-to-1* > difference in debug times! > While I basically agree that hype and exageration do not help "The Cause", I think it is important to note the YMMV caveat. If you have experienced Ada developers who are writing code in C/C++, chances are they are going to avoid the "Stupid C Tricks" and work effectively with the software design to make sure it is a solid piece of C code. If you are talking about "typical" C code (especially that which may have been developed several years ago) you might get drastically different results. Most C code I have encountered is pretty lousy because your garden variety C programmer tends to have more of an assembly language mentality and/or is enamoured with the conciseness and cleverness possible within the language. They tend to have the attitude that "this ought to be understood by any *competent* C programmer!!!" with no regard for the economics involved. (You can't always have a team of "competent" C programmers and it doesn't make the company any money to have someone stopping in the middle of reading some code to go delving into C manuals to decrypt your obscure "clever" code. In other words, clear, simple, idiot-proof code may not be as interesting to write, but it MAKES MONEY!) So it may be hard to draw across-the-board conclusions about C/C++ v Ada in terms of the economics, but I have no trouble believing that within some env ironments there may very well be a 12/1 ratio. The only way to know for sure is to measure locally. And of course there are environments wherein bugs don't matter much so there is less concern over the maintenance cost. One needs to consider lots of factors in making judgements about the economics of a given technology. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/