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: f43e6,899fc98b2883af4a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-15 01:13:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed1!bredband!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Quality systems (Was: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died)) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com> <7507f79d.0305121629.5b8b7369@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305130543.60381450@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305140549.3a87281b@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305141747.5680c577@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1052986389 15488 129.241.83.78 (15 May 2003 08:13:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:13:09 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63834 comp.object:63428 comp.lang.ada:37341 misc.misc:14195 comp.software-eng:19196 Date: 2003-05-15T08:13:09+00:00 List-Id: soft-eng wrote: > I don't agree that Ada is likely to be particularly useful > for catching errors in a professional environment -- say 2-3% > of the actual errors at best. If it's catching more than > that, I don't see how you can have good people. If it only catches 2-3% of the errors then there must be a huge amount of bugs in professional environment software. If you look at all the buffer overflow errors then these programs will be riddled with bugs as buffer overflow lands in your 2-3% category. Another advantage of Ada is the readability of the source code. In order to catch your errors you have to read through the source not simply test it to see if it runs. I believe IBM once published some data of how many percent was discovered by reading the code versus just testing it. I think the numbers where something like 60%-70% and 20-30% respectively. Miscrosoft used only the latter method earlier IIRC, what they do now, I don't know. On quality: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html > But good people can certainly make projects succeed using > many kinds of tools, including Ada. A great many things are possible, yet not practical. (Isaac Asimov) Or in other words you can probably make a huge complex system in assembly code, but it will take you a couple of decades to get the job done. > The only thing is they might privately grumble more, and may > often have to get C/C++ libraries written by outside vendors > or themselves. If you are interfacing with an OS written in C you would have to make bindings to the C part even if you use C++. > (Usually there are excuses - We could > have done it all in Ada, except for this and that... > But excuses or not, if you need a graphics library for > a new device, you would typically not write it in Ada. You Why not? -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/