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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-10 09:50:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:35:06 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1063211693 198.96.223.163 (Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:34:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:34:53 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42352 Date: 2003-09-10T12:35:06-04:00 List-Id: John R. Strohm wrote: > "Ludovic Brenta" wrote in message > news:m3brtwobby.fsf@insalien.org... > [snip] > >>By contrast, Ada was designed by and for Real Programmers, and with >>low development costs as the main requirement, therefore it took the >>exact opposite approach; it had generics before inheritance, >>emphasises separation of interfaces from implementation for code >>reuse, and tries its best to detect errors as early as possible at >>compile time. Ada is an engineer's dream and a vendor's nightmare. > > One quibble. > > Ada was not designed for low DEVELOPMENT costs. > > Ada was designed for low SOFTWARE LIFECYCLE costs. > > The key difference is that NET cost reduction over the entire software > lifecycle MAY require swallowing higher INITIAL costs. > > As an extreme example: You can push just about anything through a C > compiler, and the compiler will swallow it and be happy. Later, the system > will blow bits out the side of the box. On the other hand, it can take a > lot more effort to get the Ada compiler to accept the equivalent program, > but MANY, MANY Ada programmers have learned, one at a time the old-fashioned > way, that, once you get the Ada compiler to swallow your source code and not > spit it back up, your code is ALMOST certain to work exactly the way you > want it to. > > So you have traded increased compilation costs for decreased debugging, > test, and integration costs. Since debugging, test, and integration > typically costs a LOT more than running the compiler, this is typically a > net win. Those are good points. Limited types for example, severely hamper what the programmer _wants_ to do, but the "limited" aspect of the value/object forces them to consider the design aspects (where C/C++ imposes no such restriction). Another area is of course the use of access types etc. I am sure that an experienced Ada designer is not hampered much by these things, but an Ex-C persion sure is! -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg