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: 2003-09-09 21:57:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:43:03 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: References: Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 23:55:08 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !]c)_1k-VOq=M"$ (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42335 Date: 2003-09-09T23:43:03-05:00 List-Id: "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.