TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Philip Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Philip Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:45:10 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Simon Wright wrote:

>>From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Well, I'll try. The difficulty is that I can't, in principle,
>>present a concrete example. If a problem has good description then
>>of course, Ada is better, safer etc. language for it then C++. And
>>if you believe that programming always follows satisfactory
>>description of the problem then you surely will not see my
>>point. But in my experience, in many real cases programmers aren't
>>provided with such a description, and are forced to explore the
>>domain area themselves, and at the same time they must demonstrate
>>their progress in coding.
>>
>>
>
>Strange definition of progress, since they have no real idea which way
>they should be going. So they may be proceeding in the wrong direction.
>

This reminds me of a software application department meeting where a
co-op ask why there was no apparent software design being done to insure
a better product.

The manager stated [without blinking or a smile] that there was no time
to design software because lines of code was the only true product of
the group.  I left shortly there after.  The product line is no longer
there [and neighter is sthe manager].

ATOM RSS1 RSS2