Dave wrote:
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.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 3 May 2008 14:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Mike Silva
<snarflemike@yahoo.com> wrote:

The problem with the very large number of programmers "proficient in
C" in India, is that for a large percentage, the proficiency is not
much more than writing "Hello World" programs.

Such proficiency level can be obtained with short crash courses, but
in order to use such programmers in any real project, a competent
programming manager is required for each 2-4 such inexperienced
programmers. In the worst case, the experienced programmers spends
all his/her time managing the inexperienced programmers, while he/she
would have produced the same code alone in the same or less time.

A country ends up into this kind of situation, if it tries to
bootstrap the IT industry (or in fact any other advanced industry).

A much better approach is to include only one inexperienced programmer
into a team of programmers with at least moderately competence.

On a country level, this means it takes a lot longer to bootstrap the
industry, but the results are better in the end.

It seems that some Indian companies have realized this, since they are
buying IT companies in Europe. When asked why they are doing this,
while they have a huge number of programmers in India, the Indian
owner of one such company admitted in a TV interview that in India,
they have the required quantity but not the sufficient quality of
programmers and designers.

Paul

Mike Silva schreef:
The same can be said for just about any other programming language, with
the exception of programming languages that are mainly used for safety
critical applications.

No disagreement there. Another concern is mentality. Too many
programmers are satisfied when their code appears to work, even when
they do not fully understand why it works. I have encountered too many
cases where the programmer didn't fully understand the semantics the
constructs of the programming language he was using. Some won't use a
language construct before the fully understand its implications, others
(in my experience too many) just muddle on until the programs appears to
work (edit&continue debugging must have been invented for those people).
IMHO with the latter attitude you cannot write safety critical programs,
no matter what programming language you use. One can write crap in any
language, only some languages makes it particularly easy.

Dombo wrote:
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).

My observations are the same. I guess things will not improve any time
soon, most people are not up to the power and complexity of the
technology of the day - but have wide access to most of them
(not that I am preaching to limit this access, this would be worse).
Which explains to a large extent why the current software picture
is as messy as it is - with some rare exceptions.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tg...7600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5?dmode=source

Didi wrote:
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 **

Mike Silva wrote:
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~

CBFalconer wrote:
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~

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/crosstal...805Sutton.html

On May 5, 8:45*am, "Ed Falis" <fa...@verizon.net> wrote:
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.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 09:24:46 -0400, Mike Silva <snarflemike@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jim Sutton's book, where he goes into the details of the approach, is
really good, if you're interested in these ideas.

On May 5, 11:30*am, "Ed Falis" <fa...@verizon.net> wrote:
Yes, thanks, I'll definitely be getting it.

On Sun, 04 May 2008 10:23:08 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

An interesting related point is that of the implementation of type
extension and dispatching in Ada95. The designers of Ada95 didn't go
to the extent of implementing the object.method() syntax that now
exists in Ada05. Rather, subprograms used the concept of a
"controlling parameter" in their signature which controlled the
version of that subprogram that was used for the particular object.
When I first came across that mechanism it confused me, but once I
understood it, it taught me massive amounts about how all this stuff
fitted together. In C++/Java you (well, I) tend to take that for
granted.

On Thu, 01 May 2008 15:29:47 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Yes, I know. There may be interesting times ahead ;-)

On Apr 30, 12:42 pm, "Ed Falis" <fa...@verizon.net> wrote:
Did you mean "Lean Software Strategies" ?