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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c41845dd8e1b7c4,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-11 18:33:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!mtvwca1-snh1.ops.genuity.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Problem space (Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate...)) Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 05:31:30 +0400 (MSD) Organization: h w c employees, b f Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1052703223 4033 137.194.161.2 (12 May 2003 01:33:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37216 Date: 2003-05-12T05:31:30+04:00 "Robert I. Eachus" wrote: >I think my first deep insight into the implications of Ada programming >came in 1983, just after Ada 83 became an ANSI standard. I told someone >working on our (Ada) compiler: "No, in Ada you model the problem space, >not the solution space." I then excused myself for a minute to write it >on my office whiteboard. I wish that statement will be placed on all major Ada sites, in boldface and at the top of their homepages. But that truth should be also considered from the opposite direction: if you (your team) can't deal efficiently with problem space for any reason (most often because you either aren't familiar with the problem area or simply it isn't clear what is problem at all in the case) then you should not expect better perfomance using Ada. Moreover, probably a language, which is used frequently for similar applications is a better choice in such a situation, because there are chances that some constructs of the language will lead you to sufficient solutions, and at least you may find (and recognize!) suitable examples. In my view that explains why Ada is (and will be) used relatively rarely: because the situations where either problem space is too vaguely defined or programmers are insufficiently familiar with the problem area constitute vast majority of overall software development. Certainly, in military and safety-critical applications the problem space usually is well-defined and programmers are familiar with the problem area (either by experience or by special training). So these application types are natural targets for Ada. >So almost every Ada advocate will tell you that this language or that >language is better for this particular purpose. What we agree strongly >on is that when "programming in the large" the only language to consider >is Ada, even if most of the low-level modules are written in C, Fortran, >or whatever. That "programming in the large" is another example of an application type where problem space usually is well-defined and programmers involved are familiar with the problem area. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia