Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Leslie <jlturriff@centurytel.net>]

Ira Baxter wrote:

> 
> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote
> in message
>
news:141823e0-535d-4468-95b1-d826f7efb115@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the
>>year of
>> 2004 (I'm quoting) :
>>
>>> I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
>>> single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
>>> uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...
> 
> Your point is?  [This is true of C++ also,
> let alone C++0X]/
> 
> What matters is that the language is so complex that most
> programmers that use don't fully understand it.
> 
> Before people get excited, AFAICT, this is true of
> virtually every programming language on the planet.
> It isn't so a much a property of the langauge, but
> rather of nature of the average programmer.
> 
> What this means to me is that you should choose a well
> designed language in which to build your systems.
> Its the one thing you have a chance of controlling.
> Management won't let you choose the programmers.
> 
> -- IDB

        And, ideally, the language should also be designed with
programmer-friendliness, as opposed to implementor-friendliness,
as its primary goal; e.g. Rexx vs Perl. :-)
        Personlally, I find Ada to be much more friendly than most of
the popular languages in use.

Leslie