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-Thread: 103376,aea4cc77526f5e4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <7xJvj.7420$Ru4.4246@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <1wkwj.10399$0o7.2971@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.112.39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.net 1204077487 ST000 70.134.112.39 (Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:58:07 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:58:07 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDONTBWQR]TX\ZIBNFXBWR\HPCTL@XT^OBPLAH[\RWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:58:07 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20119 Date: 2008-02-27T01:58:07+00:00 List-Id: "Ray Blaak" wrote in message news:uhcfv5xql.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net... > > Does the existence of gnatmake indicate corrupted dependency management in > Ada? > No. It might indicate a problem with the GNAT implementation, but not with Ada. Not all Ada compilers are GNAT, and some handle this more easily. One of the issues for GNAT is that it depends on the GNU model. This is not true of Rational Apex, Aonix, or even the ICC compiler. > I program in a lot of languages, and I used to be heavily into Ada. I just do > not encounter the problem in a serious way with the other languages. > I also program in a lot of languages. I even program in Java sometimes. However, I have not programmed any large-scale programs in Java, as I have in Ada. Although you have certainly made your point that my original statement may have been too strong, this conversation has, as noted in another contribution, led me to do some research into this issue. What I have found is not encouraging. In fact, it is even a little horrifying. As Java programs get larger, the dependency problems become more and more messy. Over and over this is discussed by various forums on the Internet. Until I began researching this, I had not idea just how pervasive the problem was in Java. Apparently, for toy programs, and small projects this problem with Java does not manifest itself. However, as Java programs get larger, the programmers are required to do a lot of workarounds. Further, the compiler does not actually trap all the kinds of errors that can occur with dependency issues. Third-party tools are required to analyze these problems, and those third-party tools are not foolproof -- at least, not so far. > I easily agree that Ada is better at this, but in every language I use > currently, there are always ways to readily control dependency and separate > compilation issues. > This may be true in your practice, but there are hundreds of developers out there who are find this to be a real problem. As I see it right now, Ada continues to be a much better solution when a software architecture is large and needs to scale-up to even larger. The scary thing for me, now that I am in the DoD, is that so many contractors are naive about this issue and continue to insist on using Java for weapon systems development. In my view, based on this week's research, Java should not be used for safety-critical systems. There are too many possibilities for serious hidden problems based on these dependency issues. It is probably OK for Web solutions, but no one will accidentally get killed or maimed because of a corrupted Internet solution. Ooooops! I forgot about SOA where reusable components are integrated into safety-critical solutions. I guess it is better to be safe and not use it at all for any kind of software where life and limb could be at risk. Richard Riehle