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: a07f3367d7,20280f498071efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!tr22g12.aset.psu.edu!not-for-mail From: "Bob Spooner" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Software Quality in Science Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:52:48 -0500 Organization: Penn State University, Academic Services and Emerging Technology Message-ID: References: <1198a288-b013-45a8-907f-7fe227e6294e@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vpn2-2-171.cac.psu.edu X-Trace: tr22n12.aset.psu.edu 1265842370 356584 172.25.2.171 (10 Feb 2010 22:52:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:52:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9100 Date: 2010-02-10T17:52:48-05:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" wrote in message news:ddb8b59c-d746-4228-b7a9-7ace7058018b@u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Feb 9, 10:51 pm, Jerry wrote: > "The net result of changing languages appears > to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same, > (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one > deficiency, it appears to add one of its own." Ah but the study must have overlooked one thing. A strongly-typed language with an emphasis on software quality will naturally attract developers who understand the benefits of strong typing and value software quality. Conversely, a loosely-typed, lax language will attract sloppy programmers who do not understand why typing should be strong or who believe that bugs are good for their job security. So, even if the author's assertion were true (i.e. Ada has just as many traps and pitfalls as C, which I disagree with), developing in Ada with Ada-minded programmers will always be safer than developing in C with C-minded programmers. In fact, developing in C with Ada- minded programmers is safer, too. The same reasoning applies to Spark vs. Ada. -- Ludovic Brenta. In my experience, a lot of the problem with lack of improvement in software quality and reliability when using Ada results from developers writing Ada code the same way they write C. Then you don't get Ada's advantages and debugging is just as much of a problem as with C, with problem symptoms showing up far from the cause, etc. If Ada isn't used the way it was designed to be used, you get results similar to when you try to use a pair of pliers as a hammer. Bob Spooner