Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 11th Dec 2005 19:23 UTC
General Development Derek M. Jones looks at low-level coding errors and the use of coding guidelines as a cost-effective means of avoiding some of the more common instances of such errors.
Thread beginning with comment 71396
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Re:STTS
by mounty on Mon 12th Dec 2005 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re:STTS"
mounty
Member since:
2005-12-12

With respect, it seems to me that you do not know Ada very well, including how to spell it.

Ada has better facilities for interfacing to non-native APIs than most languages, including representation clauses and foreign calling conventions, defined by the language.

The area of application for Ada is anywhere where reliable and maintainable software is required.

Having said that, I love C++. It has enabled me to make a very good living as a contract programmer, sorting out the messes created by others.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Re:STTS
by on Mon 12th Dec 2005 18:04 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:STTS"
Member since:

Unfortunately Ada is a "dying" language. By dying I mean not in much "new" usage. I do not know of anyone with Ada on their resume and I know quite a few programmers. Neither is Ada brought up much in language wars.

Face it, Ada is not going to be adopted by any significant number of programmers.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Re:STTS
by corentin on Mon 12th Dec 2005 18:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:STTS"
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

> With respect, it seems to me that you do not know Ada very well, including how to spell it.

It is case-insensitive :]

Languages are nothing but tools. A good programmer will write excellent code in any language (well, in most languages); a bad one will write crappy code in all languages, including Ada (or Eiffel).

You can cut paper using a chainsaw; nonetheless, it is overengineering.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Re:STTS
by corentin on Mon 12th Dec 2005 19:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:STTS"
corentin Member since:
2005-08-08

E.g. if you work in a company with ten C++ developers and decide to write an application of medium size in crystal-clear Ada, do you think it will be *practically* maintainable?

Response is: it will not be. That is probably why some companies slowly moved from Ada to other (inferior, less safe) languages when the DoD announced, a few years ago, that Ada will not be a requirement anymore in its contracts.

With the automotive industry driving demand for C and C++ developers and tools to develop safety-critical systems, the Ada market will slowly collapse in the years to come, not because it is technically wrong but simply because it is not economically competitive.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Re:STTS
by mounty on Mon 12th Dec 2005 23:03 in reply to "RE[5]: Re:STTS"
mounty Member since:
2005-12-12

This change is driven as much by fashion as anything else. Ada could be revived just by changing its name and providing a large standard library package.

The finance area (investment banks etc.), in which most of my work now is, is slowing jettisoning C/C++, because of the cost (the true, overall cost), in favour of Java and C#.

C and C++ will never be as safe as Ada, which is why it remains the language of choice in embedded and safety-critical arenas.

Reply Parent Score: 1