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: 103376,25d5234e7b6ca361
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-27 16:45:30 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail
From: Dr Chaos <mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
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
Followup-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:45:28 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Univ of Calif San Diego
Message-ID: <slrnb5tc99.gi8.mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>
References: <a3eaa964.0302141953.16f72dfe@posting.google.com>
 <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com>
 <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com>
 <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com>
 <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com>
 <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com>
 <a3eaa964.0302261422.4d166fa1@posting.google.com>
 <1046299823.547481@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <1quq5v0sb922r76rbpmcs2pe19dr4i5a2r@4ax.com>
 <slrnb5t2us.fid.mbkennelSPAMBEGONE@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>
 <nm8t5vki71tsjk2cagk29pvdq4ll2bkpeq@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Trace: news1.ucsd.edu 1046393128 15642 132.239.222.85 (28 Feb 2003 00:45:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news1.ucsd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:45:28 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.object:58566 comp.lang.ada:34699
 comp.lang.java.advocacy:59438
Date: 2003-02-28T00:45:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:49:26 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote:
>>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.

Unfortunately the debate is too often governed by anecdotal arguments
about the outliers: the extreme incompetents and the gurus. 

This is reinforced by natural human prejudices.  Managers may prefer
to blame an easily-fired "weakest link" rather than their, perhaps
popular, technology choice.  

Programmers think they are not only all above average, but even the
next superfreakish Johnny von Neumann.

And so often what should be more informative data----modest scientific
exploration of typical programmer capability versus technologies----is
ignored and studies hardly funded.

> J.