Re: What is wrong with Ada?

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Markus E Leypold" <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> 
wrote in message news:awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de...
>
> I think I already answered that. Still, on c.l.a, the myth persists
> that "developers like unsafe languages". In actual reality it's the
> other way round:
>
Unsafe languages like developers?
>
> For one reason or other -- as I explained often
> enough, not related to technical merits of the languages in question
> -- people like other languages, they just happen to be "unsafe".
>
Sort of the way most people are addicted to junk food and would
rather eat something full of fat and sugar than eat their broccoli.

For example, C++ is like the peanut brittle of programming languages.
It might taste sweet, at first.  But then it gets stuck in your teeth.  Finally,
it begins to rot your code unless you brush away the residue.

> (And even that might be questioned, since the big contenders at large
> are (probably in that order) Excel, Php, Perl, Python and not only C
> ... -- Excel and the 3 Ps are not unsafe in the same sense as C/C++
> are).
>
I happen to like Python and I'm using more often now than Ada, for
non-critical code.  It is quick and easy.   However, I would never think
of using it for safety-critical software.    C is an important tool for some
kinds of problems, but it, along with its deformed cousin, is like a box
of "strike anywhere" matches, and needs to be used with great care.

Even Ada needs to be used with care.   Even SPARK needs to be used
with care.  There is no perfect programming language, at present.  While
Ada is better than most, when safety is a consideration, it too has its
weaknesses.   We should be striving for a language design that includes
the best of Ada's design, while avoiding the worst of C++, and moving
along toward the next generation of programming languages.   These
languages, by-the-way, are not Ruby and the like.   They might be
closer to Eiffel, but with a better compilation structure.
>
In any case, we should not be surprised when we use tools (languages)
that are inherently error-prone and get results that are error-dense.  When
someone remarks that the debugger is not necessary in Ada, they are
acknowledging that, well-designed Ada code will not have as many of
the idiotic kinds of errors one finds in C++ code.   However, none of us
is such a good programmer that we don't find it occasionally useful to
have a debugger to help locate the errors that result from our own stupidity.

Richard Riehle