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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-15 13:52:07 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!lynx.unm.edu!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!sloth!escher.innsol.com!bjz From: bjz@innsol.com (Brian J. Zimbelman) Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada? Message-ID: Sender: news@swcp.com Nntp-Posting-Host: escher.innsol.com Organization: Innovative Solutions, Inc. X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3aa7jo$7j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:39:57 GMT Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.ada:16724 comp.lang.c:68623 comp.programming:12817 comp.lang.c++:78997 comp.object:17430 Date: 1994-11-15T20:39:57+00:00 List-Id: In article <3aa7jo$7j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes: >In article , >Brian J. Zimbelman wrote: >>In article beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith) writes: >> >>[much discussion of Ada, why it is/isn't great deleted] >> >>I think one major reason has been omitted from the discussion. A major factor >>in what language I develop in is what language the company/department already >>has invested in. >cross-posted?> It is very excessively cross-posted. I've reduced the list, feel free to do so again if you follow this message. >By itself, this is a compelling argument regardless of whether it's >Fortran, Assembler, C++, or any other language. This argument is the >"Appeal to Momentum". It's a cool argument for something other than >Ada 9X, but with the ability of Ada to interface to C/Fortran/Cobol >(and with SGI's cool demonstration of inheriting from C++ classes), >this becomes a less significant issue. I claim the argument is less >compelling when considering Ada (but certainly not enough to make a >manager change their mind...yet). >>Ada developers are rare. C/C++ developers are all over the >>place. >I disagree here. For two reasons: 1) Ada developers aren't "rare", >just less visible. Unfortunately, I know LOTS of ex-Ada people stuck >in C++ jobs that would jump to Ada again if they could. 2) It's "C" >developers that are "all over the place". There is, from my personal >observation, a dearth of C++ developers. Many companies are hiring C >programmers now and training them in C++. I agree with Bill Beckwith >here -- it takes less time to create a productive Ada developer than >it does to create a productive C++ developer, even if they only have >a C background. Well in all the shops I have consulted to, no one has worked on a Ada project outside of school, and I can't remember three people who have done that. On the other hand over 200 developers have worked with C, and more than 50 have worked with C++ in production environments. >>Therefore, most of the time, my customers want the product in C or >>C++. The price of software is not how much it costs to develop it, but how >>much it costs to maintain it. If I can't find a developer who knows the >>language it was developed in, then I chose the wrong language no matter how >>cheap the initial development was. Oh, and personally I'd choose smalltalk >>over all other languages if it was up to me, but the guy with the check in his >>hands chooses, and that ain't me! >> >Boy, I"m confused. YOu mean to tell me that it's LESS expensive to >use a langauge that has been empirically proven to be less reliable, >because it's cheaper to find/train a developer in that language? Why >not get a language that provides more maintainable code, thus >requiring less people (which is the REAL cost factor). First, if we alway choose the "Best" tools/environments, NextStep would be very popular, NFS would have been run out of town by NCS, Microsoft & Novell would be out of business, etc. Second, when you factor in the costs of retraining your existing staff, code developed by "new Ada" programmers vs. code developed by "experienced C/C++" programmers, and finding Ada programmers when you need to maintain the existing applications, then yes it's far LESS expensive to use C/C++ than Ada, Smalltalk, or whatever is the language of the month. Personally, I've always been a smalltalk fan. I've suggested it often, but none of my clients have had enough smalltalk experience to be convinced that they should change. I did not like Ada8x, and did not keep up to date with the language. I'll have to pick up the GNU Ada system and try it. > ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-) Doesn't Ada stand for "Assemblers with disabilities Act?" :-) David, Unless we have more signal to noise, we might want to make this email only soon! Of course, I'm only saying this becouse I'll get the last word in that way! Have Fun, Brian Brian J. Zimbelman Innovative Solutions, Inc. bjz@innsol.com