Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Source File Organization Message-ID: Date: 2 Mar 91 06:19:27 GMT References: <1991Feb26.045242.23453@rfengr.com> <4836@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <4070@bnr-rsc.UUCP> <1991Mar1.143534.50@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 28 >1. The C style of solving the problem does cost more than the Ada >style: it is more difficult to learn, and the reliability is certainly >no higher (probably lower). >2. However, both the cost and reliability delta are probably >insignificant in relation to total development costs. For this particular instance, perhaps. But in aggregate, given that this is just one small example of C being more difficult to learn and maintain, it adds up. That's the point--large problems are composed of thousands of small problems, so attacking those thousands of small problems AT THE SOURCE (e.g. the language) can have a big payoff. >I wish I had such sure answers to the important problems that such a >small matter really mattered.) I will grant you that the larger issues concerns architecture and design, not this or that programming technique. But, presuming you CAN solve the macro-scale issues (and I have a number of ideas on that particular topic if you want to change threads), you still aren't out of the woods if your language of implementation fosters poor software engineering principles. The language and the culture that grows up around it must be of the highest quality, not some relic of the 60's. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."