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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,25d5234e7b6ca361 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-27 15:49:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!nwrddc04.gnilink.net.POSTED!4fcf30b0!not-for-mail From: JXStern Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.advocacy Subject: Re: Ada versus language-X and "getting real work done" (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Message-ID: References: <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com> <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> <1046299823.547481@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1quq5v0sb922r76rbpmcs2pe19dr4i5a2r@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:49:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.62.158.126 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc04.gnilink.net 1046389766 4.62.158.126 (Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:49:26 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:49:26 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.object:58560 comp.lang.ada:34693 comp.lang.java.advocacy:59433 Date: 2003-02-27T23:49:26+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:06:20 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos wrote: >> The problem is that it's far harder to find a >> truly skilled C++ master than it is a C one. > >Why is that? Because the language is a mess, and there is no objective measure of who is a "master". Is it someone who can make instant sense out of the worst mess anyone hands him? Then it ain't me. Is it someone who makes rather spare use out of obscure constructs? That would be me, but I would be down-rated because of it in many evaluation contexts. That I do it on purpose, is generally not appreciated. That I got here via the other path, is not understood. >> Both are many times harder to >> find than a skilled Java guru. Not sure about Ada. > >Why is guru-ness so correlated with language now? Because it's the machine and the tools that contain all the magic, the programmer is just a necessary overhead and contributes nothing. Obviously. >My personal opinion is that good languages ought to, and do, bring up the >average quality of the "30% to 98%" skill levels of programming. > >My personal opinion is that C++ induces too much "risk" both in programs, >---where working programs and buggy programs are almost interlocking >dense sets {in the mathematical sense}---and among programmers. That >is there is some non-zero chance that you might end up with a programmer, >perhaps good at lots of other things, who is just plain unable to be >reliably successful with C++. > >I think that would be much less likely with other programming languages. In general, I agree. J.