Re: Mainstream Ada

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:y4d4w9HEmatp@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> I am not Richard, but I agree with the quoted segment.  The point
> I see is that language choice can be orthogonal to the quest for
> features.  So long as features are the only concern of a vendor,

Consider it this way: If using language X provides me with lots of libraries
and tools and support and language Y means I've got to build some/most/all
of this up from bottom-dead-center, then things like "reliability" start
taking a back seat. If, otoh, Language Y starts offering me tools,
libraries, support *and* high reliability, then it starts becoming more
attractive as a choice.

Likewise, from the end-user's side, the perspective is one of "what are the
things I can *do* with this software and how does that help me get my
mission accomplished?" From that angle, a few crashes in exchange for some
mission-accomplishing functionality starts becoming a good tradeoff. Now if
you can offer *both* features and high quality, you've got a real winner...

(Side note: I'm beginning to wonder if end users are really as feature-crazy
as the original comments suggest. Isn't Microsoft out there trying to find
all sorts of new marketing angles because end users are going "I really
don't need Word to do anything more than its doing already so thanks but no
thanks, I don't need your upgrade...")

> one can relegate language choice to an afterthought.  A typical
> approach is to look at the employment pool will say that you can
> get a nominal C++ programmer much more readily than a nominal Ada
> programmer.  Companies without a particular concern for quality
> will gravitate to those who appear to be in greater number and
> choose the "popular" language.  Programmers equally unqualified
> in either language will declare themselves as belonging to the
> more "popular" language.  And certainly as a C++ advocate, you
> must agree that a lot of nominal "C/C++" programmers are "C"
> programmers in disguise.
>

A bit of a red herring. Languages that have offered the market something
useful that the market was inclined to want have found acceptance. How did
Java get a toe-hold from nothing to something in a fairly short time? There
was a time when there were no Java programmers - yet companies adopted it  &
got their people up to speed using it because it offered them something they
weren't getting other ways.


> So it is not that developers who choose Ada need to forgo features.
> Rather, it is that developers who choose features over quality
> have no particular incentive to choose Ada.  Those nasty checks
> will get in the way of time-to-market.

I doubt the checks get in the way of time-to-market. I think that (all other
things being equal) the checks hasten time-to-market. I think that's
demonstrable at the bottom line where business decision makers concentrate.

Just beware that the langage that ignores time-to-market does so at its own
risk... :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/