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,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e2776c05028676e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice Date: 1997/06/18 Message-ID: <01bc7b7e$bc0a0400$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 249199302 References: <33a1c14d.155787285@news.mhv.net> Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Paul Van Bellinghen wrote in article <33a1c14d.155787285@news.mhv.net> reasons for C being more successful than Ada for embedded applications. You concentrate on an example of a technical advantage of C over Ada, and you present this example well. I feel many Ada advocates would argue that the Ada way you outlined was better (for being more explicit) than the C code. However, I feel sure that the C code would be just as acceptable provided it was documented sufficiently (perhaps with a good comment), and I'm sure many programmers would be irked by the more cumbersome methods imposed by Ada. However, I do feel that the predominant reasons for C achieving greater success than Ada, both in the embedded arena and everywhere else, are commercial, not technical. C is a more pragmatic language than Ada: it is easier (cheaper) to implement a C compiler than an Ada compiler. It has also had a long head start (at least ten years, I would reckon) in the market place. I think it is a little premature to 'write off' Ada just yet! Nick.