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: 103376,674e000a42e146d3,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 17:17:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Ada The Best Language? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:15:15 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 995501857 47608 137.194.161.2 (19 Jul 2001 00:17:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:17:37 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10220 Date: 2001-07-18T20:15:15-04:00 I generally don't like getting into these discussions because it's all irrelevant anyway. The volume (or success) of C++ to Ada has nothing to do with the relative quality/productivity/superiority of Ada relative to C++. It has to do with initial investment. C (leading into C++) had a 10 or 15 year head start on Ada. When Ada came about, most of the C compilers were free, or near free, while the Ada compilers were very expensive. When a manager looks at initial costs (no matter how near-sighted that may be), and says "I can use a free, or near free, C compiler, or pay $20+ for an Ada compiler. Let's see which way to go?" Even with the Ada mandate, there were plenty of groups violating it, mostly due to cost. Even when we moved to the PC arena back in 1989, the Alsys compiler was $5K, while Turbo C was $59. Even after the big Alsys price cut, it was still $2500 per copy. So, the low cost of C lead to wide use from the home hacker to company software teams, which led to lots of libraries for just about everything under the sun. Granted the initial cost argument has not been true for a number of years now, but it doesn't negate the head start enjoyed by C/C++. Fortunately, I worked for managers that were not so near-sighted and chose Ada, but I was around plenty that went the other way. While I agree with McDoobie that different languages have their strong points and are better in different situations, the question "what language is the best" translates, in my mind, to "what is the best general purpose language". To me that is Ada (though I haven't used Eiffel and have only looked at Java). Not just from what I've read, but what I've experienced as well. I've moved from VAX VMS to LynxOS to IBM MVS back to HP-UX to Windows, with very little change to code. Similar C/C++ ports were nightmares. Anything that had to do with shared memory (global sections on VAX), threads/processes, interprocess communication, semaphores, etc., were extremely painful to port in C/C++. All of which were nicely taken care of by highly portable tasks in Ada. Fortunately, I didn't have to do an of the C/C++ ports. Of course Ada can't be the best for all situations (at least not yet), but if it's good enough to do the job well, then I don't care to learn the "better" language for that isolated advantage. I admire McDoobie and others who can work in multiple languages fluently. My mind just doesn't work well that way. I prefer to choose what I think is the best overall and go with it, until something forces me to use another. I've done Assembly (VAX), Fortran, Pascal, C/C++, and Ada. I've seen a number of studies over the years that showed Ada superiority to C/C++ in readability, error detection, reliability, SLOC reduction, maintainability, etc. But I'm not even going to bother trying to look them up, because it didn't make a difference the first time, and it won't make a difference now. With the huge amount of libraries and interfaces defined for C/C++ (and Java), most C/C++ programmers wouldn't consider switching to Ada unless it had at least the same amount, and probably not even then, despite the technical advantages of Ada. Ada has to at least catch up, and be able to adapt to new hardware and interfaces as fast as C/C++. Plus we need innovation that will put Ada in the lead instead of playing catch up. I just wish I knew how to do it. Frank -----Original Message----- From: codesavvy@aol.com [mailto:codesavvy@aol.com] > No but do you have any data that measures how much more productive an > Ada developer is using these features? BTW I like these features in > Ada 95 a lot. I doubt, however, that producitivity is increased > significantly by having them available.