From: Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@...>
Date: 2008-04-16T11:40:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Ada vs Ruby

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rick DeNatale wrote:

|
| Amen, Sister!  And languages which rely on static typing have a
| tendency to do much more random things when things go wrong.  Language
| like Ruby tend to have a more vigilant runtime.
|

I wouldn't fly in an aeroplane that relies on the runtime to catch errors.

Take the Space Shuttle as an extreme. Does the language breed perfection
in the Shuttle's source, or is it the process NASA uses?

I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it is the process, with
more-than-due-diligence in writing and testing the software. That the
requirements are clear cut and well understood is another bonus.

Languages don't matter. Compilers don't matter. Process, however, does.

Or methodology. TDD has its benefits, as does BDD. Without these, the
Agile way wouldn't work. QA is the key, not that language.

Don't just take my word for it:

http://www.nap.edu/html/statsoft/chap2.html

The above link has a case study on NASA's process for developing the
Space Shuttle's flight control software.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

You've got to stand up and live before you can sit down and write.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgFZv8ACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/GSgCfVkHiDMTN/GeqsfzImN3FdP8O
050AniEDC3937FBIB6wfdGa2EadoFWco
=YSBK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----