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!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <20070123211651.c0d43695.tero.koskinen@iki.fi> <87zm89tpk7.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4q4pqgmdwo.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1169719988.972296.121430@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <4iauh.1157694$084.1040745@attbi_s22> Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.135.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.net 1170016331 ST000 70.134.135.166 (Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:32:11 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:32:11 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: Q[OQB\CEBZUWSSD[N[O@_WH@YR_B@EXLLBWLOOAFJYWZUYICD^RAQBKZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON[ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNTCIRPIJH[@RQKBXLRZ@CD^HKANYVW@RLGEZEJN@\_WZJBNZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q[GPC_A@CARQVXDSDA^M]@DRVUM@RBM Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:32:11 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8653 Date: 2007-01-28T20:32:11+00:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey R. Carter" wrote in message news:Ymfuh.321356$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. 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 show Eiffel and Ada at the same place on the continuum. Many would argue with this. 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. 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. 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. 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. Richard Riehle