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,a1ce307c10055549 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-13 04:44:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!207.217.77.102!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: IBM Acquires Rational Ada Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:43:51 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3DF1615C.7AAAC86E@adaworks.com> <3DF1B042.6603DDDE@easystreet.com> <3DF2A483.EC512CDF@adaworks.com> <8db3d6c8.0212091445.12594821@posting.google.com> <3DF628C4.7090607@cogeco.ca> <3DF6653D.3030603@cogeco.ca> <8db3d6c8.0212101850.51506572@posting.google.com> <3DF7901C.3000006@acm.org> <1039712678.466533@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3DF9A5B3.3CC0E2A3@praxis-cs.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.a0.7a X-Server-Date: 13 Dec 2002 12:44:29 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31783 Date: 2002-12-13T12:44:29+00:00 List-Id: Peter Amey wrote in message news:3DF9A5B3.3CC0E2A3@praxis-cs.co.uk... > > > Marin David Condic wrote: > > > > Exactly, 100% the point. Ada seems to be so busy coming up with a "perfect" > > answer that it misses the point - even a bad answer is better than *no* > > answer. > > Not if the application is life-critical (or even business critical). > > Not necessarily true. In fact, its done all the time. People write life-critical or business-critical or anything-else-critical applications in weak languages with shoddy libraries all the time. It just *costs* more to do it! I could use some crappy library of buggy containers in a life critical app if I a) test carefully and avoid the things that kill it and/or b) patch the library myself until it works right. Both of which probably will take less time than building the library from bottom-dead-center. Granted, all other things being equal, I'd rather have a good, solid, rigorously standardized, thoroughly tested Ada library to work with. But if I've got hardware coming in 3 months and you're perfect Ada library is going to be delivered in 2005 with the next ARM, my choices are these: Write my own or use some piece of crap that someone else built in C. Hardware is here in 3 months? Damn! I think I'll go with the piece of crap in C and hope I can patch it together well enough to do the job. Chances are, I can make that work and it got me the leverage I needed to get my job done by the time the hardware arrives. So if the Ada mentality is going to remain "We won't build a library until it can be released in the ARM and implemented on every processor ever designed and thoroughly run through the wringer so that it is 100% provable to be safe and reliable...." then I guess Ada can just keep on giving up development jobs to C, C++ and Java. Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate "Lets go build really crappy libraries so we can be just like C/C++ with lots of core dumps because then everybody will love us..." I'm suggesting that coming up with a library that is maintained less formally than the Ada standard and released more frequently than the Ada standard is likely to a) produce something that is probably not going to be as rigorously defined and validated as the ARM would be and b) so what? it got there and is doing the job. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================