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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5faad1722103f6a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <90Stc.15309$be.3117@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <40b86431$0$186$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk> <40B888E0.5040707@noplace.com> Subject: Re: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 18:35:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.222.234 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1085942110 66.81.222.234 (Sun, 30 May 2004 11:35:10 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:35:10 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:936 Date: 2004-05-30T18:35:10+00:00 List-Id: "Pascal Obry" wrote in message news:ulljal52z.fsf@obry.org... > Well they don't see the costs of educating C/C++ programmers to Java either > but they do it since everybody else does it :) And the next wave is C# :) > Until the next language... > Programming language selection, like politicians, is made on the basis of slogans, buzzwords, and half-truths. Almost no one in the DoD contractor community is making programming language selection based on a full and informed basis. The choice of "experienced" Java programmers over experienced domain experts, is one of those kinds of decisions. Experienced software project managers realize that language skills are more easily taught than domain knowledge. Of course, we need a good mix of languages experts and domain experts for any project. More important than experience in some specific programming language is experience developing software in a variety of languages. For safety-critical software, or for software where a high level of dependability is essential, Ada is still the best decision. However, when finding inexpensive university-trained programmers is the goal, Java is the right choice. Of course, those Java-trained programmers are not likely to understand much about real-time controls, the deeper concerns of concurrency, the techniques for achieving efficient low-level constructs, scheduling algorithms, or most of the other stuff we routinely teach our Ada programmers, but no matter; they can write web pages, create little GUI programs, and target the JVM. In one of my classes this Quarter, Programming Paradigms, we are focusing our attention on two languages: C++ and Ada. The students have already had two Quarters of Java before entering this class. We also introduce them to several other languages such Eiffel, Lisp, Prolog, and my favorite, Smalltalk. As they become more and more informed about Ada, after studying C++ and a lot of Java, many tell me how much they enjoy Ada, and ask why it isn't used more. Yes, they continue to use Java, because they know a lot more of it, and they can make those little GUI's (although they also write MS-Windows programs in Ada in this class), and the other professors prefer them to us C++. But they are learning that there are choices, and Ada is a good choice for certain classes of problems. One reason Ada is not more widely accepted is that it has been so badly presented so often. True, C++ is usually taught badly as well. But Ada suffers from the many mistakes we have made over the past twenty years in the way we have taught it. Professors, most of them I know, want nothing to do with Ada. It is not as new and interesting to them as Java. Moreover, they can get papers published more easily in Java than they can in Ada. I have been told not to submit a paper if my examples are in Ada. I am advised to use Java instead. To which I reply, "No thanks. I really don't have a compelling need to publish." C# is an interesting language. It seems to have learned a lot from Ada, as well as from Java. There are some things I dislike about it. There is even one feature I simply find annoying: the misuse of the term "delegation." In OOP, delegation has long had one well-understood meaning, and C# has corrupted that meaning to be the equivalent of a pointer to function. Sheeeeeeesh! Richard Riehle