Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Wouter van Ooijen (www.voti.nl)" <wouter@voti.nl>
wrote in message
news:422b6d49.1141887367@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> If you want to realy broaden your perspective I
would suggest
> something in the lazy-functional field like
Haskell.
>
Haskell has a lot to recommend it.  In fact, it is
sad that more programmers
are not schooled in the value of functional
languages.

However, we must select the right tool for the
right job.   There are problems
where Haskell would be preferred to Ada.
Large-scale, safety-critical software
systems developed by a team of programmers is not
the domain where I would
choose Haskell, or ML, or Scheme, or Lisp, or most
other functional  languages.

Where Ada is the right choice, nearly all the
time, is for large-scale software systems
that involve an equally large number of
developers, and where the software modules
developed by that team must snap together just
right -- no guesswork.   This is Ada's
strength. Few languages can compete in this
domain, although many programmers
do try to use less disciplined languages with some
modest success.   Eiffel might be
a good alternative, but my preference for that
kind of software is still Ada.

Consider a military commmand and control system, a
complex system with a lot
of requirementss built in.   Now, think of this
system in terms of its size: 4.5 million
lines of source code.   This is the kind of
project that is perfect for Ada.   In fact,
any software system over a half-million lines of
source code should be coded in
Ada.  Some authors have set that threshold at 100
KSLOC.

If you have a small, 20 KSLOC software system, go
ahead and use a different
language.   Just keep in mind that as that
software grows over time, you might
find yourself wishing you had chosen Ada in the
first place.

Richard Riehle