problems/risks due to programming language

[Mike Percy]

>From article <8103 at hubcap.clemson.edu>, by billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu at hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ):

[Ada is great, Ada is wonderful, nothing can beat Ada, if you don't program 
 in Ada you are stupider than worm-slime, blah blah blah]

I've used Ada Bill, I even liked it. But, I am really getting tired of reading
your diatribes against every other programming language, of reading your
praises of Ada to the exclusion of all others.  I use the language I feel
is best for the particular problem at hand.  I drop into assembly to 
optimize a speed-critical section of code.  I use C for portability (right,
I know, there are n fully verified  Ada compilers running of x different
machines, so how can Ada not be portable?) and speed of coding (my speed
is higher in C than in Ada or any other language, this is subject to
change of course), I use COBOL at work because that is the language the
systems I maintain, I use a quasi-4GL when I can to spit out 3GL code. 
SOmetimes I use SNOBOL, Lisp, or Prolog, or Pascal.

I've seen some Ada code that must have been written by brain-damaged idiots.
And I've seen some beautifully written assembly.

The point is, that the programming practices are what makes the difference.
It is entirely reasonable to engineer software in C or Prolog or...
Just as it is reasonably easy to mangle Ada.  Granted, Ada lends itself
to good software engineering practices, probably you could even say that it
encourages it. However, it does not guarantee it, nor does the failure to
use Ada preclude good software engineering practices.

My guess is that Ada will gain a load of users and their respect when there 
is a Microsoft Ada or better yet (or worse yet) a Turbo Ada.

Anyway please try to keep your pro-Ada, anti-everything-else stuff in check. 

-- 

'I just couldn't convince the voters that Dukakis was Greek for
"Bubba".' -- Lloyd Benson explaining why the Democrats didn't carry
Texas