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  June 1999

TEAM-ADA June 1999

Subject:

Re: Anti-Ada Arguments

From:

Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:57:08 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
>   Probably I'll be unique contributor to this discussion, who agrees that
> it is hard to oppose the arguments presented by you.

I'll agree that it's hard to oppose them, simply because we're talking
about trying to change the preconceptions people hold.  It's easy to
change a person's opinion if he/she realizes that it IS an opinion.

Here, we're trying to change ideas that are just as obviously true from
observation as the fact that the Sun goes around the Earth.


>the gap between strong programmers and poor
> programming workers is much broader and deeper inside Ada community then
> inside C/C++ community. Indeed, that gap in Ada case is easily observable,

I suspect that's the more true version: it's easier to see the
difference between good developers and sloppy hackers when using Ada.

In fact, I've observed a fairly smooth continuum in Ada developers.  I
will grant that the pool is smaller, so it may be harder at a given
instant to find an example of a developer at skill level X.  But I
think the distinction you're seeing is between the incompetent and the
competent, not between the weak and the great.  I see a LOT of competent
Ada developers out there, and a lot of competent software engineers and
developers who could very easily learn Ada.


>   Surely, if you can hire for your projects several really strong programmers
> ...then Project A will have
> all chances to win against Project C for all imaginable criteria. But in
> reality you have a sharp deficit of even moderately-strong Ada programmers
> and at the same time sufficiently good C/C++ programmers are generally
> available.

If you can only get mediocre programmers, go with a mediocre language.

    :-)    <-- smiley added for the humor impaired per ADA

I've worked on a large Ada program (150+ software developers) and
some of them were top-of-the-line.  And then, hoo boy, some of them
were lazy, some were badly trained, and some were just plain stupid.
Between them and me (I hope) were a lot of people in the middle.

One thing I observed is that the better people are wildly more
productive with Ada than with C.  Modularity, typing, generics,
in-language multitasking -- they act as "force multipliers" for the
good people, and if you put them in lead positions they can use these
facets of the language to break the work out for the junior team
members and give THEM the same "force multiplication."

I also observed that mediocre and poor programmers tended to resist
"all that software engineering crapola" and tried to code as if they
were using a fairly old version of FORTRAN.  But if they caved in and
started to really use the Ada language at a design level, they started
getting the same benefits.  And they started liking the language,
because all of a sudden they were getting more productive and were
being viewed as better developers -- not because they were following
some arbitrary code standard, but because they were delivering code
faster and it worked better.


>   As for cost prediction of a project, there are two points to mention:
>
> 1) naturally, there are less chances for big overrun in C/C++ case simply
> because an initial estimate is substantially bigger;

I'd agree that a given overrun is a larger percentage of a smaller
total.  However, overruns tend to scale up with the size of the
project, especially those that hit late in the program -- which are
generally both more common and larger.

This is especially true when the project is back-loaded, since the
code you are throwing away was a bigger part of the original cost.
That is, if you throw out 10% of the code, and coding was 40% of the
project, you have lost 4% of your work.  But if coding was 80% of the
project, you have lost 8% of your work.  And, for the same conceptual
error, you will probably throw out more code -- that's one reason for
a careful, modular design, to "firewall" subsystems so that problems
won't force rework across the entire system.


> 2) Ada projects tend to be optimized. And it is a general law (or at least,
> general experience) that various estimates for optimized things are often
> unstable -- they may jump significantly after small changes.

Here, once again, is the confusion between language and process.

If Project A didn't maintain a management reserve for contingencies,
and an awareness that problems will occur -- not may, but WILL -- and
will require time and manpower to solve, they would blow out their
schedule and budget while using any language.  This is a good lesson
to learn.  Tying it to the use of a specific language is just
scapegoating, and will KEEP you from learning the real lesson.

On the other hand, if Project C wasn't tied down with specific
requirements; if they could deliver something "good enough" whenever
the schedule expired, so long as it resembled the last prototype; then
they could hardly have had any kind of schedule slip or cost overrun.
And, if that's all the customer needs and wants, then that's exactly
what you should do.  There's no point to doing a full set of
architectural drawings for an outhose.

Best,
Sam Mize

--
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam

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