Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Ray Blaak" <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net> wrote in message 
news:ud4qgnvqt.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net...
>
> In the interests of keeping any controversy alive, if you accept the use of
> tools that help an Ada compiler know what to rebuild based on what source
> files have changed, how is the use of tools that help a Java compiler to do
> the same thing a sign of deficient dependency control? I.e. Ant.
>
Tools are fine.  Every programming language benefits from tools.   As I
noted in another post, there is no perfect programming language.  However,
the problems of Java are inherent in the language design.   While we all
know that C++ is a language that is error-prone, that is not what we would
expected of Java.

On the other hand, Ada is a more consistent design that does not have as
many design flaws as Java, and certainly not nearly as many as C++.  In
the case of C++, the tools have never been enough.   For Java, it turns
out, the tools are also insufficient for ensuring that language-based problems
are elmininated from an application design, especially when that application
is a large-scale software system.

My concern is the dependability of software systems embedded in the tools
and weapons used by our military personnel.   They go into battle, placing
their lives on the line using the software tools we provide.   I long ago 
realized
that any decision to use C++ for these kinds of systems was irresponsible
(unless C++ was reigned-in drastically, as it is on JSF).  I did not, until
recently, worry as much about Java.   Now, with my recent investigation of
Java, I have concluded that it is also fraught with problems that can (and
apparently do) produce errors in software that are difficult to trace and
even more difficult to predict.

The more I examine the evidence about Java, the more I realize it is not
dependable enough for the kind of systems where people's lives are at
stake. Therefore, I will, as noted earlier, recommend against the use of
Java for military systems where dependability is an issue, whenever I can.

When we are required to apply engineering practices in the development of
computer software, neither C++ nor Java are sufficiently well-designed to
measure-up to a rigorous model of engineering.   Ada also falls short in some
respects, but is not as bad as the alternatives.  SPARK certainly comes closer
to satisfying engineering principles and practices.   As of this moment, there 
is
no language that satisfies engineering as well as we might like.  But that does 
not
justify using languages that are so flawed that an engineer cannot depend on 
them
to actually behave in predictable ways.

Richard Riehle