Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!hand
From: hand@ncsu.UUCP (Steven Hand)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Ada is a Good Thing
Message-ID: <3072@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Mar-86 17:55:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ncsu.3072
Posted: Mon Mar 31 17:55:01 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 02:53:34 EST
Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh
Lines: 58

----

In article <8000002@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes:

>I do not think Ada is significant nor a Good Thing for computer
>science in general for the following reasons:
>
>1) A "common programming language" is not significant.  It is not even
>DESIRABLE.  Do you think Ada is good for Avionics?  [...] for database
>access? [...] for defining report layout? [...] for interactive screens?
>[...] for tabular computation?  NO WAY.

Ada was designed for "imbedded systems"; but on the way they made a good
general-purpose language.

>(remember, these things have to be RELIABLE)

Reliable compared to what?  I think Ada would be more reliable if it
was smaller, but it is more reliable than assembly language or even C.

>Besides, how long does it take YOU to become proficient in a language?
>One week? Two weeks max?
>[...] How then is this such a big deal?

The best response is to quote Gary Ford & Richard Weiner in their book,
"Modula-2: A Software Development Approach", (John Wiley) p.12 :

	When one properly learns Ada, one is really learning
	software engineering, as is the case with Modula-2.

...which, incidentally, I would like to see replace C in the small system
world.

>3) Do strongly typed languages REALLY help?

Oh, come on now!  Strong typing, with well-defined type
conversion/coersion, is one of the best things for reliable, transportable
programs.  Just look at all the arguments going on in net.lang.C about
what particular fragments of code mean.

>4) Software engineering is in its infancy, and will continue to be
>until something is REALLY discovered which reduces effort and bugs.

GOOD POINT.  But we should use the best we've got right now.

>[...] force a standard (Ada) which is stone-age (because all
>currently used software technology is stone-age).

Should we stop writing software until a new, non-stone-age technique
gets invented?  If you know of a currently-existing "answer", let me
know.

>Aguments?

The more the merrier; it keeps the net interesting.

Regards, Steve Hand
         decvax!mcnc!ncsu!hand