Re: Arbitrary Sandbox

[Rob Shea <zzycatch@gmail.com>]

I understand the benefits of Ada in embedded systems and the like, but
are these benefits lost when used on top of all the abstraction that
is Windows?

Cheers,

Rob

On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 09:41 PM, Rob Shea wrote:
>
>
>
> >>     The use of the term "Sandbox" suggests security is a primary goal.  Ada
> >> was invented for the military.
>
> > True, and that is a bit point in favour.
>
> More along those lines: Ada is the language of choice for software that must
> behave correctly. It's the language of choice for SW that flies jetliners,
> controls passenger trains, controls nuclear reactors, and the like.
>
> Why is that? The answer is lives and money. If the SW fails, lives may be lost,
> and the company could be out billions of dollars. Ada has demonstrated that it
> is the least expensive way to get SW that won't do that.
>
> So if correct behavior of your SW is important, Ada is the way to go. You'll
> have to pay for decent SW engineers, and they're not cheap. If you don't care
> how the SW behaves, then you might be able to save some development money by
> using a popular language and the cheap people who use it. But if you've got
> decent SW engineers, a small group of them using Ada can usually produce better
> SW faster and cheaper than a large group of coders using a popular language.
>
> --
> Jeff Carter
> "IMHO, Interfaces are worthless."
> Randy Brukardt
> 117
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---