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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-20 04:16:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!nerim.net!norfair.nerim.net!not-for-mail From: "Bertrand Augereau" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:20:48 +0200 Organization: Nerim -- xDSL Internet Provider Message-ID: <9j93u6$1ua8$1@norfair.nerim.net> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com> <9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <5be89e2f.0107181300.4b4e93d7@posting.google.com> <3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: aboukir-101-2-1-inutero.adsl.nerim.net X-Trace: norfair.nerim.net 995627782 63816 62.4.19.69 (20 Jul 2001 11:16:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@nerim.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:16:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10316 Date: 2001-07-20T13:20:48+02:00 List-Id: Don't take it as a troll, but the fact that some people here write C/C++ makes me think they are not aware of all of the C++ features which make it (I think) able to compete with Ada95, at least for most common applications. "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" a �crit dans le message news: 3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com... > codesavvy wrote: > > Brian Rogoff wrote in message news:... > > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > > > From: "codesavvy" > >.......snip........ > > > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$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