Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!iis!neeri
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "Ada and C++", from comp.software-eng
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.165320.3833@bernina.ethz.ch>
Date: 30 Apr 91 16:53:20 GMT
References: <5148@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Sender: neeri@iis (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher)
Reply-To: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: etzj-gw

In article <5148@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, abdlm@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>Wasn't this the system (or one similar to it) that took out the whole east 
>coast of the U.S. with a pointer bug last year. Chalk up another victory for
>the power of pointers and C++. With so much of the world economy riding on
>the telecomunications networks, wouldn't it make sense to build these 
>systems with tools (read languages) that were designed for reals time systems.

Are you implying that Ada programs are absolutely bug-free ? It seems to
me that these telecommunications applications have quite few failures.

>Any cost sagings AT&T realized by using their in house language (C++,C) which 
>might or might not be faster than Ada were probably lost in the first few hours 
>of the service outage. That was an expensive lesson.

So what exactly was the lesson ? That real systems, as opposed to their
specifications and their vaporware counterparts, sometimes fail ?

>-D. Miller, Goddard robotics Laboratory.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can 
    even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_