Subject: Re: WC>: Women role models in computing
On Thur Oct 22 1998 at 7:29 AM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 1998 at 10:47:19PM -0400, Bob Munck wrote:
> > Note, too, that both C++ and Java are much larger than Ada 95
> > by just about any measure you could name, including size of
> > the specification, number of rules in the grammar, number of
> > keywords, and number of violations of proper O-O architecture.
>
> They were, however, not designed by committee, which is why much of
> the bulk of Ada is excess, useless, cumbersome baggage, and why much
> of the bulk of C++ and Java is actually useful.
What do you call ANSI ? Aren't They a committee ? The ANSI committee
is in control of the C++ Std. Not Biojrn Strustrup (sp).
> > It is larger in the number of host and target machines supported
> > by validated compilers.
>
> I don't buy the Ada "validation" process for a moment. It's bureaucratese
> with no significant software engineering value. But even if Ada
> runs on more systems than Java or C++ (which I doubt), that's
> only because those who choose to bloat themselves at the trough
> of DoD/et.al. funding have ported it, and because it's been
> around a heck of a lot longer (in the case of Java).
Well, the "validation" will help ensure that "Feature A" in 2 different compilers
will generate code that does the same thing.
I have seen 2 different "C" compilers generate massivly different code (when doing
assembly code debugging).
> There's a reason you don't see the people who have a choice (i.e. the
> freeware community) rushing to port Ada and write things in Ada and create
> applications in it, while you *do* see them doing the same in C++ and
> Java (and C and Perl and tcl/tk).
I guess that you have never heard of gnat (the GNU Ada Translator).
>
> > I for one am very happy that more and more systems that I trust
> > with my life, like the avionics for the Boeing 777, are programmed
> > in Ada.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> Really? Is there something magic about Ada that means that those
> avionics systems are bug-free?
>
> I don't think so. I've never seen any credible evidence that programs
> written in Ada are demonstrably more reliable than programs written in
> any other modern language. It's just hype spouted by Ada proponents to
> provide an excuse for what is in reality a miserable language.
>
> And by the way, if you're going to worry about programs that you
> "trust with your life", then I'd advise spending a lot more time worrying
> about the ancient software in the ATC systems which guide that Boeing 777,
> or the firmware running elevators and traffic signals, or the software
> runnning CAT and NMR scanners, or ...
>
I would trust that "ancient software" in those systems because at this stange,
that code is about as close to bug free as you can get. Why do you think the
software in the space shuttle (with a few small changes) is the same code that
ran in the Apollo space craft ? The oldest code is usally the most debugged
and therefore reliable.
Would you want to be riding in the space shuttle with 100 % new code that may
or (more realisticly) may NOT have been fully debugged ?
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
