Anyone out there using Ada ?
in [Embedded]
|
From: CBFalconer on 4 May 2008 10:23 Didi wrote: > .... snip ... > > I think too much importance is given to the used language. Good > programmers have been through a number of languages and if needed > could quickly adjust to any other one; those really good would > have settled to a certain language for a reason which might prove > worth enough the respect to go lax on the language requirement > (given that the available tools allow that, that is). That depends on the programmer. Good programmers can cope, or alternatively are good programmers because they have had to cope in the past. Today we see far too many who can use nothing but C (sometimes C++, which makes it worse), and that poorly. They have no idea of the fundamentals that drive the language, in fact assembly is another world for them. Suggest Modula, Lisp, Ada, Pascal, Cobol, Fortran, Whatsis, and they recall in horror from the unknown. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
From: Dave on 4 May 2008 19:13 Mike Silva wrote: > On May 3, 6:57 pm, Dave <d...(a)comteck.com> wrote: >> Ahh, still thinking technical rather than economic--got to break you of >> that! It costs money to train them and they already knew C. And >> training would have been an open-ended proposition at best, undesirable >> and unattractive at worst (from their viewpoint). Their employment >> model (late 90's and maybe still) was to work for a few months then go >> to another company which would offer them more money for their >> experience, so training would have been open-ended. And learning MGM >> would not have helped them at their next company, thus undesirable. >> >> We did use them for 3-4 efforts involving MGM, and never got even one of >> the previous people we had worked with even a couple months before. So >> we trained them every time. >> >> ~Dave T~- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > OK, I'm going to try and think economic now. > > Give them more money to stick around and stop the revolving door? > > How'd I do? :) Much better--we'll make a manager of you yet! There were some incentives and other programs initiated. I'm not sure how well they worked. One of the programs was to send them to the US for a year--in exchange for which they were had to commit to staying with the company for some period of time. As a US manager said: "I thought the British tried that--didn't work for them." ~Dave T~
From: Dave on 4 May 2008 19:36 CBFalconer wrote: > Dave wrote: >> Mike Silva wrote: >>> Yep, I can believe that. Odd that it didn't occur to anybody to >>> teach some of them Modula-GM. I doubt Indian programmers have a >>> genetic propensity towards C and away from anything else. >> Ahh, still thinking technical rather than economic--got to break you >> of that! It costs money to train them and they already knew C. ... > > From the evidence of postings on comp.lang.c Indian C programmers > are no more accomplished (and maybe less) than American/European C > programmers. So, IMO, insistence on Ada, and the time spent to > absorb it, would not be a major added expense, and the improvement > in code quality should more than pay for it. Use of Ada would be > an advantage, because it would avoid the prevalent mis-application > of C. I would recommend Ada rather than Modula because it is > almost as universally available as is C, due to inclusion in gcc. Well, this was a decade or so ago that this started. And would have meant training the non-Indian programmers (at the automotive supplier and at the very large auto company) in Ada at a time when the auto company's worldwide purchasing was insisting on "commonality" in order to reduce costs. They believed (still do AFAIK) that since C was so common, specifying its' use would allow them to purchase from anyone, increasing competition and reducing cost. ~Dave T~
From: Ed Falis on 5 May 2008 08:45 Here's an interesting article in this month's Crosstalk on "Lean Software Development". There are some tables showing the relative effects of various software approaches on productivity, quality etc. Outsourcing is the only one show with net reduction in the "ilities" compared to the structured methods of the 70's. I can easily believe it, based on some of the anecdotes I've heard from colleagues who've managed such efforts. http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2008/05/0805Sutton.html
From: Mike Silva on 5 May 2008 09:24
On May 5, 8:45 am, "Ed Falis" <fa...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Here's an interesting article in this month's Crosstalk on "Lean Software > Development". There are some tables showing the relative effects of > various software approaches on productivity, quality etc. Outsourcing is > the only one show with net reduction in the "ilities" compared to the > structured methods of the 70's. I can easily believe it, based on some of > the anecdotes I've heard from colleagues who've managed such efforts. > > http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2008/05/0805Sutton.html Many thanks for that fascinating reference. I wonder if the outsourcing crowd will reconsider when they see that 20% quality impact figure (that's down from the 100% baseline!) for geographic outsourcing. Yowsa! BTW, every in-country programmer in the western world ought to send this information to their higher-ups. |