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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-30 13:25:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" 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: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:15:42 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@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> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Wed Apr 30 15:21:04 2003 NNTP-Posting-Host: !^r7u1k-VbK]jFs (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62949 comp.object:62417 comp.lang.ada:36781 misc.misc:13834 Date: 2003-04-30T15:15:42-05:00 List-Id: "Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message news:cf333042.0304300835.4800e03e@posting.google.com... > "John R. Strohm" wrote in message news:<416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net>... > > Apples and oranges, Will. > > > > The interesting comparison would be to give both sides the same hardware > > power, and do the UI software in Ada vs. C. > > Newsflash: ``Ada versus C'' is not interesting. Ada and C are much > more similar than they are different. If you don't think so, it's only > because you are too absorbed in the arcane details that separate your > favorite high level assembly language from the next one. > > An Ada versus C programming context is the coding equivalent of a > three-legged race in which each side thinks that their particular > method of tying legs together gives them an advantage. > > Writing UI in either Ada or C is a waste of productivity that could > only possibly be justified in a freeware project, or some > tax-dollar-supported researchy thing. (To be clear, I don't mean > *morally* justified, only economically). What such a comparison would yield is a data point on the graph of cost per function point vs. choice of language. There is considerable evidence that strongly suggests that Ada, all by itself, makes a significant positive difference in programmer productivity over the embedded software lifecycle, by reducing defect incidence and promoting earlier defect detection (i.e., compile-time vs. run-time) and easier debugging and correction (e.g., by a compiler error message vs. a core dump), when one controls statistically for all other factors. It must be understood that the embedded software lifecycle is one or two orders of magnitude longer than the typical commercial lifecycle, and the cost impact of defects escaping into a fielded project is MUCH higher. (Commercial web applicatiosn don't kill people when they malfunction. Computer-controlled radiation therapy machines can, and have. Do a search on "Therac-25".) Or is it your belief that cost of software development, and cost of quality, is immaterial? If so, I recommend you read Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free", where he advances the concept of cost of quality, by quantifying the cost of reworking defective material and then showing that the added cost of NOT generating defective material is generally MUCH lower than the cost of rework.