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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!kanaga.switch.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!cernne03.cern.ch!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AW: How come Ada isn't more popular? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:42:43 +0100 Organization: CERN News Message-ID: References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1169548286.088284.198940@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abpc10883.cern.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cernne03.cern.ch 1169631763 31959 137.138.37.241 (24 Jan 2007 09:42:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@@cern.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:42:43 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8467 Date: 2007-01-24T10:42:43+01:00 List-Id: Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > For long term employees, you > should be looking for SW engineers, whom you then train if necessary. Yes. > Identifying SW engineers isn't easy Especially when the management (the hiring guys) are not SWEs themselves. > but one clue is that SW engineers > generally like Ada once they've been exposed to it. Sorry, but this is made up of very thin air. What about SWEs that were never exposed to Ada? What about coders that were exposed to Ada but still have no clue? The only thing that backs up your statement is that an average Ada programmer is probably more competent than an average C programmer, but even though this correlation is statically true, it is not necessarily related to the virtues of any language, but rather to the fact that it requires more self-determination (and therefore professional discipline) to learn Ada in the world where Ada just does not sell (see "How come Ada isn't more popular" thread). Learning C or Java comes for free and the rest is just statistics, not the rule. There *are* SWEs that use other languages. > This approach has long term cost savings, as Ada results in SW that is > ready for deployment sooner and has far fewer post-deployment errors > than SW in C. As if these were the only progamming languages in the world. There are ~2500, according to some very conservative estimations, so there is no need to keep comparing just these two. "Ada is good, because it's better than C" - is this the only thing that Ada can offer? :-) With ~2500 languages around just being better than C does not count as any advantage, so I don't understand why do you use this as an argument so often. If you want to sell Ada, compare it to Java or C++ or C#, for example. > Your SW is ready before your competitors, and is higher > quality. Just to flame a bit, I can write a database client library in C++ faster than in Ada without compromising its quality (see my recent posts concerning how much fun I've had with [Limited_]Controlled). ;-) -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/