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=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Larry J. Elmore" Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/11 Message-ID: <01bc46bd$fe7e8900$3f6700cf@default>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234293645 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <5ijb0o$ajc@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> <334d3da5.14386594@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <2senchydgk.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> <33636746.328095140@client.ne.news.psi.net> Organization: CampusMCI Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Terry Colligan wrote in article <33636746.328095140@client.ne.news.psi.net>... > Steve Jones - JON wrote: > > >haggedk1@ulysses.jhuapl.edu (CubanPete) writes: > > > >[snip] > >> Come on now Phil. There is no language that produces software that > >> works "more right" than another. Software is either right or it is > >> not. Ada may have a great debugger but VMS types will argue all day The fact is that most Ada implementations don't need (or have) "great" debuggers because a _lot_ less debugging is needed compared to C/C++. The bugs are hardly ever as obscure and difficult to find as with C/C++. > >On my last project we use C and Ada, the bug count in the Ada code was > >over 1/3 that of the C code. And tracking down bugs in Ada is much easier, > >the code falls over it tells you the brief reason (eg constraint error) and > >the line at which the error was raised and the stack trace. You can then add > >exception handlers et al to secure the system. It provides in built range > >checking and strong typing. > > > >In C assigning to an unitialised pointer will cause either a crash or > >wild behaviour and never tell you, in Ada it will crash and tell you why. > > A checking C environment will stop and tell you, as well. Just > because most C environments don't do much checking doesn't mean it > can't be done. Any assignment using an uninitialized pointer in our > InstantC incremental environment will tell you nicely that you have > just tried to use an uninitialized pointer. Sure, it can be done. Just flip through any programming magazine like DDJ or something similar and just _count_ how many (expensive) tools and packages there are to catch all kinds of _extremely common_ C/C++ bugs. It's better to use a language that helps one avoid the bugs in the first place... > I am not offering any data or opinion about Ada vs C, since I don't > use Ada -- I'm just saying C can be made pretty safe, if you choose > to. With how many hundreds of dollars of add-on tools? Assembly language can be just as safe with a suitably highly-skilled, highly-disciplined programmer. The point is that it is easier for the average, run-of-the-mill programmer to write higher-quality code with Ada than with C. Code that works right the first time. -- ----------------------------------------------------- Larry J. Elmore Bozeman, Montana "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares." --Isaiah 2:4 "History teaches us that those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." --Anon.