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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-09 06:36:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: 9 May 2003 06:36:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0305090536.49431321@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <17cd177c.0305011129.2eab5fb8@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1052487377 16882 127.0.0.1 (9 May 2003 13:36:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 May 2003 13:36:17 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63390 comp.object:63088 comp.lang.ada:37102 misc.misc:14038 Date: 2003-05-09T13:36:17+00:00 List-Id: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com (Gautier) wrote in message news:<17cd177c.0305011129.2eab5fb8@posting.google.com>... > You simply ignore the huge debugging time provided > by poorly-typed languages and its effective relation to > job safety. So what ? No -- having worked on reasonably large projects in C, I can say that with professional programmers with experience in a language like C, this simply ceases to be an issue. *MOST* bugs in a professional C project have nothing to do with type safety. The bugs would have happened in any language, because they involved logic issues. So the advantages of a fully type-safe language are small, perhaps 5%. And that's very easily offset by the disadvantages (extra time, effort, debugging for the situations that _require_ getting around the type-safety, loss of the automatic programmer-pruning that "hard" languages such as C/C++ bring...)