From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: KMays@msn.com (Kenneth Mays) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/09 Message-ID: <00001a73+00002cb9@msn.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146621938 references: <4kb2j8$an0@solutions.solon.com> <4kbrt5$k3h@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <4kcer3$mi4@solutions.solon.com> <4kdnvq$3n8@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> organization: The Microsoft Network (msn.com) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >Of course, you can't really assign blame to any of these abstract >entities; blame, if it is to be assigned, must be assigned to the >people responsible. But you can't blame any of the people involved too >much. You can't really blame the language designers or language >committee much; after all, they were just doing their best to specify >the language in a way which allowed implementations some flexibility. >You can't really blame the implementors, even though they may have >known that defining things the way they did might lead to portability >problems; after all, they were only following the spec! And you can't >really blame the programmers too much for making the occasional >mistake; after all, they are only human!! Interesting point. The C language still falls under Objective C, ANSI C, or some other variant - instead of just C. You have OWL and MFC libraries for MSDOS-based machines, and specialized libraries for SGI/Sun/Cray platforms. You can say its the language designers, and/or the language implementors, which is why I spoke of standardization of the base module of Ada95. Are we going to have Objective-Ada95, Ada95 V2.0, or whatever? You want to blame the programmers? Well I do believe that many programmers are young (or old) hackers or college graduates just starting out in the professional field. Hell, I just got through reading about DB/2 V3 when most businesses are still using V2.x!!! I could go into MicroFocus Visual COBOL issues but the point is that we are working with some of the new tools and those tools aren't always perfect. Technology is moving so fast that what you learn in a college class today might change before the week is over. There are so many patches, updates, fixes, and workarounds that either you are in the business (an MIS) of keeping up with the latest hacks or your company is left behind in the whirlwind. Programmers have a hard enough time trying to program besides doing multirole jobs in certain organizations. Blame it on the managers who push software engineers and programmers to release their software NOW, instead of next week (I don't blame everything on managers either). --> But when it comes to Ada95, the USAF and other agencies are depending a validated programming language that it can trust enough to put in those embedded systems - and get some good results from it. Many accidents are caused by bad programming habits or miscommunication between the programmer and system analyst/project manager - not so much the programming language. Even with C, there are many shortcuts and workarounds to do the same thing more efficiently and effectively - without garbage collection and with good error handling. Teach our programmers good programming habits and teach the managers how to understand good language design and analysis. I could say more but I'll leave it at that. Ken Mays, MIS, USAF http://www.wg53.eglin.af.mil (Webmaster) "The pursuit of excellence is a lethal habit - when you inject it into the minds of the incompetent." "That's mot a bug, that's a convertible!"