Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++ makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it (I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common applications. "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" a �crit dans le message news: 3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com... > codesavvy wrote: > > Brian Rogoff wrote in message news:... > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > > > From: "codesavvy" > >.......snip........ > > > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language > > > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope) > > > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked > > > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO. > > > > I agree with you. I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model. > > However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I > > could be convinced otherwise. > > What soooo many people keep overlooking in this "productivity issue" > is the _TOTAL_ cost. This has been repeatedly been pointed out by others > here, but many C/C++ zealots seem to fail to completely grasp this issue. > The amount of time spent in a debugger for Ada is small. The amount of > "weird bug" issues is also extremely small for Ada code in general. > > I have spent a major part of my career chasing down other peoples' (and > in some cases my own ;-) memory corruption problems. Sure, it was very > efficient to slap together that C/C++ project. But when you add all that > time to find out where the memory corruption came from, and all those > future bug reports that eventually required investigation, Ada wins > hands down on a comparison comparison basis. Where do you want to spend > your time? In the debugger, or crafting new code? > > The challenge is to get everyone to recognize that you don't measure > productivity in terms of delivering the final product. Measure it in > terms of delivering the "_perfected_ product". Then consider the cost > of maintaining it after it is delivered/installed. > > Another way to look at this issue is that the Ada compiler uses CPU > cycles to spot programming errors for you. Conversely, the C/C++ > compiler only looks for gross errors, but otherwise blesses your > code with the ability to "blow away the whole leg", if that is the > instruction you have given. And with automatic type promotion etc., > C/C++ leaves a few surprises in store for good measure. > > Anyway, the whole issue keeps coming down to the point of how you > want to measure "productivity". You need to expand your view on that > IMHO. > > -- > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG > http://members.home.net/ve3wwg