A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the year of
2004 (I'm quoting) :

> I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
> single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
> uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...

It's in the middle of this place :
http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Perl/comp.lang.perl.misc/2004-11/0699.html

Well, at least the guy has some doubts

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Ira Baxter]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1005 bytes --]


"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:141823e0-535d-4468-95b1-d826f7efb115@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the year of
> 2004 (I'm quoting) :
>
>> I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
>> single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
>> uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...

Your point is?  [This is true of C++ also,
let alone C++0X]/

What matters is that the language is so complex that most
programmers that use don't fully understand it.

Before people get excited, AFAICT, this is true of
virtually every programming language on the planet.
It isn't so a much a property of the langauge, but
rather of nature of the average programmer.

What this means to me is that you should choose a well
designed language in which to build your systems.
Its the one thing you have a chance of controlling.
Management won't let you choose the programmers.

-- IDB

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Leslie]

Ira Baxter wrote:

> 
> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote
> in message
>
news:141823e0-535d-4468-95b1-d826f7efb115@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the
>>year of
>> 2004 (I'm quoting) :
>>
>>> I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
>>> single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
>>> uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...
> 
> Your point is?  [This is true of C++ also,
> let alone C++0X]/
> 
> What matters is that the language is so complex that most
> programmers that use don't fully understand it.
> 
> Before people get excited, AFAICT, this is true of
> virtually every programming language on the planet.
> It isn't so a much a property of the langauge, but
> rather of nature of the average programmer.
> 
> What this means to me is that you should choose a well
> designed language in which to build your systems.
> Its the one thing you have a chance of controlling.
> Management won't let you choose the programmers.
> 
> -- IDB

        And, ideally, the language should also be designed with
programmer-friendliness, as opposed to implementor-friendliness,
as its primary goal; e.g. Rexx vs Perl. :-)
        Personlally, I find Ada to be much more friendly than most of
the popular languages in use.

Leslie

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Leslie wrote:

|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                           |
|                                                                |
|        And, ideally, the language should also be designed with |
|programmer-friendliness, as opposed to implementor-friendliness,|
|as its primary goal; e.g. Rexx vs Perl. :-)                     |
|                                                                |
|[..]"                                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|

I consider Smalltalk versus Eiffel to be a counterexample.

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 5 fév, 17:58, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Leslie wrote:
>
> |----------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"[..]                                                           |
> |                                                                |
> |        And, ideally, the language should also be designed with |
> |programmer-friendliness, as opposed to implementor-friendliness,|
> |as its primary goal; e.g. Rexx vs Perl. :-)                     |
> |                                                                |
> |[..]"                                                           |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> I consider Smalltalk versus Eiffel to be a counterexample.
Yes, Bertrand Meyer like to assert that about its language.
While to be honest, implementation rationale is always an issue.
That's true with Ada as it is with Eiffel.
Let say there is different weighting in this area (but can't say any
language does not make it an issue).

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[T. Taft]

On Jan 28, 2:32 pm, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the year of
> 2004 (I'm quoting) :
>
> > I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
> > single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
> > uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...
>
> It's in the middle of this place :http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Perl/comp.lang.perl.misc/2004-11/...
>
> Well, at least the guy has some doubts

Don't believe the rumor. ;-)

-T. Taft

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Gautier write-only]

On 28 Jan., 20:32, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> A persistent Ada rumor which was at least still there at the year of
> 2004 (I'm quoting) :
>
> > I've also heard rumor that Ada is so complex that no
> > single programmer fully understands it, and so the military
> > uses it, but that smacks of Urban Legend to me...
>
> It's in the middle of this place :http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Perl/comp.lang.perl.misc/2004-11/...
>
> Well, at least the guy has some doubts

That's certainly true, but if complexity should refrain people using a
language, they should immediately stop programming with things like
VB.NET or C#. In comparison Ada is a lightweight language...
There is also the time element: you can take years to reach a 90%
knowledge of Ada, but it is a life-long, useful investment.
Think of your poor neighbours who must permanently buy and swallow
huge Microsoft books that get deprecated after three years...
______________________________________________________________
Gautier's Ada programming -- http://gautiersblog.blogspot.com/

Re: A persistent Ada rumor (just to play the fool)

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 29 jan, 21:53, Leslie <jlturr...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>         And, ideally, the language should also be designed with
> programmer-friendliness, as opposed to implementor-friendliness,
> as its primary goal; e.g. Rexx vs Perl. :-)
>         Personlally, I find Ada to be much more friendly than most of
> the popular languages in use.
>
> Leslie

Sure it's less implementor friendly than it is to user

On 2 fév, 13:09, Gautier write-only <gautier_niou...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> That's certainly true, but if complexity should refrain [...]

I would like to say Ada (and some others) are not more and not less
complex than the Reality Is (and domains and realities may vary).