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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d274f280c8c4a8b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 15:50:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Mainstream Ada Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:53:10 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3C77CF8C.93F1837@adaworks.com> <3C78943B.9030600@mail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1014648792 22392 136.170.200.133 (25 Feb 2002 14:53:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:53:12 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20410 Date: 2002-02-25T14:53:12+00:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" 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/