←back to thread

327 points AareyBaba | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bri3d ◴[] No.46185823[source]
https://web.archive.org/web/20111219004314/http://journal.th... (referenced, at least tangentially, in the video) is a piece from the engineering lead which does a great job discussing Why C++. The short summary is "they couldn't find enough people to write Ada, and even if they could, they also couldn't find enough Ada middleware and toolchain."

I actually think Ada would be an easier sell today than it was back then. It seems to me that the software field overall has become more open to a wider variety of languages and concepts, and knowing Ada wouldn't be perceived as widely as career pidgeonholing today. Plus, Ada is having a bit of a resurgence with stuff like NVidia picking SPARK.

replies(5): >>46188588 #>>46188799 #>>46189574 #>>46190668 #>>46196352 #
ecshafer ◴[] No.46188799[source]
I've always strongly disliked this argument of not enough X programmers. If the DoD enforces the requirement for Ada, Universities, job training centers, and companies will follow. People can learn new languages. And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++.
replies(7): >>46189342 #>>46189545 #>>46189754 #>>46190651 #>>46191046 #>>46192553 #>>46192991 #
IshKebab ◴[] No.46189754[source]
I agree. First of all I don't think Ada is a difficult language to learn. Hire C++ programmers and let them learn Ada.

Secondly, when companies say "we can't hire enough X" what they really mean is "X are too expensive". They probably have some strict salary bands and nobody had the power to change them.

In other words there are plenty of expensive good Ada and C++ programmers, but there are only cheap crap C++ programmers.

replies(4): >>46189872 #>>46190145 #>>46194786 #>>46203251 #
1. jll29 ◴[] No.46194786[source]
I agree - Ada is very similar to Pascal, and much faster to pick up than, say, C++.