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: 103376,d274f280c8c4a8b8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-24 06:24:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Mainstream Ada Date: 24 Feb 2002 08:24:48 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <3C77CF8C.93F1837@adaworks.com> <3C78943B.9030600@mail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1014560691 20109 192.135.80.34 (24 Feb 2002 14:24:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20330 Date: 2002-02-24T08:24:48-06:00 List-Id: In article <3C78943B.9030600@mail.com>, Hyman Rosen writes: > Richard Riehle wrote: >> At present, functional requirements overshadow non-functional > > requirements in the world of commercial software. That is, > > features are easier to sell than quality. > > You know we usually fight over Ada vs. C++ issues, but I think > I'm going to take Ada's side here. I don't like Ada all that > much, but it's mostly for stylistic reasons. I believe, however, > that an Ada programmer can pound out features just as well, and > just as quickly, as a Java or C++ programmer. Are you really > suggesting that commercial software developers who choose Ada > will have to forego adding features to their software? That's > not going to do much for Ada advocacy! I am not Richard, but I agree with the quoted segment. The point I see is that language choice can be orthogonal to the quest for features. So long as features are the only concern of a vendor, one can relegate language choice to an afterthought. A typical approach is to look at the employment pool will say that you can get a nominal C++ programmer much more readily than a nominal Ada programmer. Companies without a particular concern for quality will gravitate to those who appear to be in greater number and choose the "popular" language. Programmers equally unqualified in either language will declare themselves as belonging to the more "popular" language. And certainly as a C++ advocate, you must agree that a lot of nominal "C/C++" programmers are "C" programmers in disguise. So it is not that developers who choose Ada need to forgo features. Rather, it is that developers who choose features over quality have no particular incentive to choose Ada. Those nasty checks will get in the way of time-to-market.