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-Thread: 103376,a9bbfb8cd49f1a51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bos-service1.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.ray.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada?? References: <42d64dde$0$64794$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <1121352985.715265.125490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1121352985.715265.125490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030009050608020801060009" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:11:05 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.24.111.90 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.ray.com 1121357466 147.24.111.90 (Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:11:06 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:11:06 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3625 Date: 2005-07-14T09:11:05-07:00 List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030009050608020801060009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Silva wrote: > I think so too. Of course the article only mentions Java and C++. Big > surprise there. Everything technical about SW development favors the use of well designed languages such as Ada by SW engineers. Everything economic favors the current system where the construction workers (coders) design the bridges (SW) and choose the materials (languages) to build them with. Adding concurrency to the mix won't change that, though it will probably reduce quality even further. Ada is a language for SW engineers; C and its offspring are languages for coders. Since we allow coders to choose languages, it's not surprising that they choose coders' languages. Even when Ada is used for concurrent systems, Ada's concurrency features are often not used. While technical reasons are often given for such decisions, they rarely are true. Generally, the real reasons are the designers' lack of understanding of concurrency, replacing it with something more familiar. Why don't we allow construction workers to design bridges and choose the materials? Because when they fail, we lose enormous lawsuits, and that more than offsets the savings obtained. Because when they fail, people die in ways that attract the attention of regulators. When the same is true of SW, perhaps we will see a distinction between SW engineers and coders, and Ada will become more prevalent. In the meantime, my experience is that only about 2% of developers are SW engineers, so I'm glad Ada isn't popular. If Ada were popular, it would mean it was badly designed. --------------030009050608020801060009 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="spam.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="spam.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Jeffrey Carter n:;Jeffrey Carter email;internet:jeffrey_r_carter-nr [commercial-at] raytheon [period | full stop] com x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard --------------030009050608020801060009--