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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-03 17:17:39 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!milod From: milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) Subject: Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?] Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <1994Oct03.092205.14115@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 21:31:11 GMT Date: 1994-10-03T21:31:11+00:00 List-Id: andrewl@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Andrew Lees) writes: >This is an interesting point. I _know_ personally that it is possible to >write software using Ada with an error introduction rate during >design and coding something like >an order of magnitude better than C or C++. (I have used all the languages >extensively). However, this improvement is not seen in general, and I cannot >achieve it myself without significantly changing the intellectual tools used >to design and think about the software, and (to a lesser extent) the process >of development. In other words, if you design it right, using a good engineering process, and code it right, you get a good result. >That is, Ada offers the _potential_ to get _much_ more >reliability and productivity (much, much less time spent "integrating" >i.e. finding and fixing errors), but this is achievable only by doing things >differently. In other words, if you design it right, using a good engineering process, and code it right, you get a good result. >Having thought long and hard about getting the same sorts of >improvement with C/C++, I don't think it is practicable (for various >reasons, mainly concerned with complexity in the case of C++). So Ada >development could show a big competitive advantage over the other >contenders, but in practice it seems the difference (if any) can only >be discovered by careful analysis. Get real. (Have ya flown into Denver recently?) >I understand (only too well) that language is only one of the factors >in the software cost equation, but it seems that with all of the good >properties that Ada has (and now with its serious design flaws fixed), >it offers a great jumping off point for other process improvements. Naah, I've seen horrible atrocities committed in Ada, and I've seen 'em committed in C. If the engineers don't have it, putting them in a "rubber-room" won't stop them from hurting themselves. If the engineers do have it, they'll know enough not to run with the scissors. -- c'iao, milo ================================================================ John DiCamillo Pinin' for the fjords? milod@netcom.com What kind of talk is that?