Re: Why I like Ada

["Richard Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net>]

"David Starner" <dvdeug@email.ro> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.26.19.11.04.359100@email.ro...

... in response to a conversation about debugging C versus Ada,

> Why do you think it's a function of programming language? It may be at
> a different level, but you can replace divisions with bit-twiddling,
> structured code with hyperoptimized gotos, or manually inline code in
> Ada just like C.

I don't know how much Ada, C, or C++ you have written, but I am going to
assume you have written quite a lot of each.

Back in the 1908's, when I first started coding Ada, I found myself
constantly
checking up on myself by resorting to the debugger, pretty much the same
thing
I did with my C code.   In time, I realized that I needed the debugger less
and
less with Ada.   This does not mean it is never necessary to use the
debugger.
In fact, I still like to use the debugger as an informational tool (what
kind of
code is being generated) rather than an error-correction tool.

With C++, I find myself going into debug mode much more than with Ada.
This is especially true when I am trying to figure out what is going on with
a misbehaving C++ program written by someone else.  Perhaps this is
because I am more comfortable with Ada than with C++.   Even so, when
I do need to debug Ada code, it is much easier, for me, than debugging C++
code.

So, for me, language does matter.

I am more and more becoming concerned with the notion of risk in software
engineering.   The more I compare the relative risks of programming
languages,
the more I realize that Ada, for me, is not as risk-laden as most of the
alternatives.
That is, it seems easier to create risk-free code in Ada than in C or C++,
while
achieving the same level of performance and flexibility.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Richard Riehle