LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  December 2002

TEAM-ADA December 2002

Subject:

Re: Future of Ada

From:

"Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Alexandre E. Kopilovitch

Date:

Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:29:30 +0300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

>>I meant not uncertain and/or
>> changing requirements, but worse: unknown domain area and no experts near you.
>
>The risk of such kind of projects is very very high

Yes, of course, but let's be honest - as a rule all that risk is for investors,
not for programmers, and not even for managers. So that risk is taken again
and again -;)

> and the language you use can't do anything with it

Yes, any language can't help here. Except of the lucky case when something
similar was already done (and is accessible) in some language (which most
probably will be C++ -;) .

>I don't know any language which can fix such kind of bad project management.
>As a matter of fact, every day on my work I can see how many problems can present
>the language (C++) in the situation when management is not a strong side of
>a project. It cause additional problems, really very serious problems. The
>problems is ten times bigger when you have many "good C++ programmers" (~100).

All that is true, but now imagine the same bad project management with the
same team using Ada (well, let's assume that all team members went through
1-month Ada training, but on different sites, from different teachers). I guess
that the whole picture will become even more awful, it will be true nightmare,
thanks to Ada powerful features used disorderly.

>They are more ten times bigger when your system full of simultaneous processing
>- such kind of things can't be described on C or ++ the way anybody can manage
>it and catch all bugs in it during 3 years.

Well, tasking/mutithreading is another story. In this area we have unpleasant
choice between Ada, which is probably best at the language level, but probably
needs (costly) support, then C++, which has practically no support for tasking
at the language level, but usually comprehensively connected to the underlying
OS, and then Java, which supports multithreading at the language level, but
otherwise isn't much more controllable then Basic.

>I spent a lot of time with hacking absolutely mad "class hierarchy", "friends",
>bad include effects, macroses etc.

Oh yes. This is unforgettable -;) .
  But perhaps you did not see Ada in trenches... I'm afraid that one (or crowd)
may build with Ada packages and types no less horrible things as with C++ classes.

>On my opinion C++ don't suitable to any _predictable_ development.

C++ without additional tools - perhaps. But those who want predictable development
do use additional tools. It is normal practice for any serious development
using C++, I think. With even not too sophisticated external tools you may
enforce various standards-rules-styles, and prevent many errors and inconsistencies.

> It suitable
>for work when a risk is source of pleasure, something like alpinism.

No, it is an exxagregation. It is true that with C++ we generally allow more
risk in software than with Ada, but this may be justified by the consideration
that other constitutients of our whole real-world application do not introduce
high amount of risk. At the top level, we should manage overall risk; usually
we have no hope to reach competitive results not taking certain level of risk;
so our problem is to distribute that risk propertly among the ingredients of
the whole thing and its operative circumstances. When non-software risks are
high (as it happens in military or, say, medical equipment) then the risks
associated with the software part of the thing must be severely limited - and
here Ada is in place. Otherwise, that is, when non-software risks are relatively
low then we may afford higher risk associated with the software part - and may
decide to use C++, Java, etc., even Perl -;) .

>How it can reduce the risk when nobody knows what he or she gets when mix all
>these "hierarchies" and "threads" and infuse for a couple of monthes in conditions
>very close to a battle?

Well, if there is no real battle around, perhaps some conservation law requires
some imitation? -:)  And if we change the language from C++ to Ada the result
may be as replacing a fight with sticks by the fight with guns -;)


>Sergei Lodyagin
>C++/Ada developer

Alexander Kopilovitch
Too Independent Programmer

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager