Re: Ada, the best language with the not-so-best tool chain

[Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 10/19/2012 10:30 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:>
 > |Primary factors in this choice were training availability, tool support, and
 > |processor support. Another key factor was type casting, not as a language
 > |feature, but as a hiring feature. Many of the university students simply
 > |refused to work Ada as it was not seen as a marketable experience base. When
 > |all factors were considered, C++ and C emerged as the languages of choice
 > |(these depending on the processor chosen).

Developers who won't use Ada are not worth hiring. Willingness to use Ada is a 
good indication that a developer is a software engineer, not a coder.

S/W quality in a fighter is not as important as it is in an airliner, provided 
the ejection seat works. My experience with DoD contracts is that they are 
"cost-plus": the more the work costs, the more profit the contractor makes. 
Using C/++ costs more than using Ada. To my mind, this is the factor that drives 
defense projects to use lousy languages: they drive the cost up, thus making 
more money for the contractor. The reasons the contractor gives are rarely the 
truth.

Meanwhile, Ada is still the language of choice for systems that have to work 
correctly.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Whatever it is, I'm against it."
Horse Feathers
46