Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?

[Cesar Rabak <csrabak@yahoo.com.br>]

adaworks@sbcglobal.net escreveu:
> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message 
> news:Ymfuh.321356$FQ1.7034@attbi_s71...
>> Don't you get logical on me here. I maintain that it is impossible for humans 
>> to write safe C. For proof by blatant assertion, see my previous post.
>>
> I would take issue with your blanket statement even though I am in
> general agreement with the foundation that motivates its expression.
> 
> Every programming language isbe error-prone at different levels, including
> Ada.  

Nice contribution, Richard, but the line wrapping mangled the diagram 
you propose to become almost unintelligible...

Would you mind posting it with the scale top to bottom?

>  The question is how error-prone a language might be.  On a continuum
> of more error-prone to less, Ada is at the end of the scale for less error-prone
> _____________________________________________________________
> More 
> Less
> Error-prone            ------------------> 
> Error-prone
> 
> Assembler       C                           C++           Java    C#         Ada 
> SPARK
>                     COBOL-68       COBOL-85   Objective-C        Eiffel
>                                    Early PL/I                        Recent PL/I
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> A more detailed continuum could be developed that covers more languages.  I only
> show a small representation here.

I think is already a nice account of languages for this discussion.

> 
> I show Eiffel and Ada at the same place on the continuum.   Many would argue
> with this. 

I don't so I'll follow on.

>  I don't think that anyone who knows both Ada and C++ really well
> would argue with their relative positioning.   Java is more error-prone than Ada
> due some issues with its type model and the preservation of some dangerous
> constructs.  C# design improves the dependability of some of those constructs.

Yes, now if one dares to put this in a two axis space (like the 
'quadrants' certain consulting groups love to publish�) with error 
proneness (or its inverse 'safety'[?]) against 'market push', we'll 
arrive at something with Java and C# on the safer and 'market supported' 
space and then all remains the same in the market :-(

> 
> As I have often noted in this forum and elsewhere, I often wonder why someone
> who chooses to develop software in a language that is error-prone would expect
> a software system that is error-free. 

Because:

>  Although a language, by itself, cannot
> guarantee a system that is error-free, one would expect an outcome that requires
> less debugging time and would have fewer defects than with a language that is
> error-prone.

present beliefs in the SW industry are that the process (CMM sense) is 
what makes SW more reliable or not.

Upper management is used to navigate in the muddy waters of non perfect 
systems: unreliable OSs, virus/worm/trojan threats, so coping with a 
'popular' language is part of the (usual) business.

Another question we tend to forget about C is the formidable ecosystem 
that exists to help companies to get right with lint-like tools, memory 
checkers, etc.

> 
> While C++ may have some capabilities not found in other languages, it is still
> a poor choice for software where dependability is important.   It is not a 
> language
> well-suited to safety-critical software.   On the other hand, I am impresed with
> a lot of the design elements of C#.   It still fall short of being ideal for 
> safety-critical
> software, but it is an improvement over C++ and Java.

Food for thought:

Let's see, if we pick a recent project (Next-Generation James Webb Space 
Telescope) what would be the proposed language by IBM?