Re: What ada 83 compiler is *best*

[to.reply@read.my.sig (Rick Thorne)]

In article <3666F5A4.2CCF6592@maths.unine.ch>, Gautier
<gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote:

Hello,

> For every job opening for high-quality restaurants there are dozen for 
> McDonalds. Will you conclude high-quality restaurants are disappearing ?

Are you actually submitting to me this as a refutation of my point?  I was
sincerely trying to generate some CRITICAL discussion here.

High-quality restaurants and fast-food joints operate in separate domains,
sir.  McDonalds caters to people on the go, kids, etc.  It is cheap,
quick, and good enough for people running for their lives.  High-quality
restaurants are for couples, friends, etc. who want to take their time,
enjoy each other's companionship, and truly savor a meal.  These are two
completely different worlds.  I wouldn't take my wife to McDonald's on our
anniversary, nor would I take her to Le Papillion while we're rushing
around Christmas shopping.

Ada and C++/Java operate in the same domain.  They're all used for large
system development, real-time processing, applications development, etc. 
Which you choose depends on the development environment you want.  If you
want to get close to the machine and control the memory usage, us C++
because it provides incredible memory allocation capabilities.  If you
want simplicity in memory allocation and want enourmous flexibility in
portability and UI development, use Java.  If you really don't care about
performance or vendor support and want to comply with obscure and obsolete
government standards, use Ada.  Your call.

> Of course, the computing world loves convergence to standards (C++, Windows).
> It's a good thing.

...and you're saying that Ada isn't compliant to a standard, and that Ada
hasn't tried to impose its standards on the rest of the known universe? 
If so, you haven't read much about the intent of the language you seem to
love so much!  I think one of the reasons Ada has failed so miserably in
commercial US software development is precisely BECAUSE it is a standard
the government has tried to bully on us.  C++/Java and others have
considerable strengths of their own that make Ada unnecessary.  YES -
unnecessary.  C++ and Java are perfect forms of protest.  They were
developed by a handful of people (not a government bureaucracy like Ada
was) AND they're incredible languages, whether or not YOU agree.

> Why does Ada still exists, then ? Why are Ada95 compilers beeing developed ?
> It's surely because of some advantages. E.g:

> - the most bugs are found at compile time in Ada (a fraction of a second) and
>   during debugging sessions in Fortran, C, C++ (it may take hours);

Can you possibly be implying that C++/C compilers don't find bugs, and the
Ada somehow produces code without runtime errors by virtue of superior
compiler technology?

To make the statement that Ada compilers - by definition and/or
technological superiority - make Ada a virtual bug-free language is simply
ludicrous.

> - an Ada source is easy to read.

Again, puh-lease.  Some of the worst code I've ever seen is Ada code.  And
again - to make the statement that Ada by virtue of its own merits always
produced easy to read code isn't even worth discussing.  I've been there. 
I know too well to be patient with this argument.

There as another point in all this, sir: easy-to-read code isn't that
answer to one-tenth of the problems that plague software development. 
Most of the serious problems are requirements analysis and transmittal and
software architecture & design.  As a programming language, Ada doesn't
begin to address these issues except in the most obtuse way.  If we've
learned anything from Ada, we've learned that languages AREN'T at the
heart of the software engineering crisis.

My advice: before you make the public statement that Ada solves software
engineering's nightmares because the compilers are great and it produces
easy to read source code, I suggest you read "No Silver Bullet" by
Fredrick Brooks.  Ada is just a programming language.  Languages are NOT
at the heart of the software engineering crisis.  They are peripheral
co-conspirators at best.

> The bad point for Ada is that these two advantages concerns a small part of
> software industry.

>  - it's a threat for a programmer hired by a company: an Ada program is
>   too early finished and debugged; once the guy has been sacked, the source 
> can be maintained and reworked without him! 

AND AGAIN - are you actually implying that there's no Ada code out there
that wasn't years late, $$millions over budget, and virtually
unmaintainable?  If you believe this, I suggest you read some of the GAO
reports written in the last 10 years on this topic.  Ever wonder why the
Ada Initiative was dropped by the DoD?  The reason is somple: Ada code
isn't any less expensive, buggy, slow, or difficult to read than anyone
ELSE's code.

> - since the main stream software industry lives from selling buggy updates to
>   buggy programs, Ada is absolutely not the language to use ;-) !

Cute closure, and I'm certain the Ada worshippers are laughing with you. 
The rest of us are only too happy with our own stuff to simply smile at
your pointless jingoism and return to technologies with a future. 
Interesting how few of us regard Ada as one of them!

Rick

-- 
? Rick Thorne                            ?  "I'm quite illiterate, ?
?     software engineer by day           ?   but I read a lot"     ?
?     harried father of two by night     ?          J. D. Salinger ?
?     rick.thorne@lmco.com               ?                         ?
?         http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6816/             ?