Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software landmines (loops))

["midlamD" <MidlamD@abacustech.com>]

I think I can safely say (as a 62-year old) that being anti-documentation
has nothing to do with age.  Most of the programming peers that I most
respected were serious inline documenters (I respected them for their
solutions, not their comments <g>.)  
I don't know what your perfesser's problem is, but it sounds to me like he
just doesn't want to deal with a lot of paper -- he knows what the "right"
code is and he doesn't want to have to look hard to find it.

Brian Mueller <pluto1@choice.net> wrote in article
<3630b064.23189339@news.supernews.com>...
> On 13 Oct 1998 00:12:49 GMT, last.first@domain.nul wrote:
> 
> <...snip...>
> >
> >>   -- Ada compilers were late, buggy, slow, too expensive, no
libraries, ....
> >
> >And commercial Fortrans and Pascals were not?  For some reason, ADA
> >became a bete noir;  I suspect mostly because the CUSTOMER wanted it
> >and the vendors didn't want to spend any money on learning to do it. 
> >Longterm thinking be dammed, what's the quarterly bottom line?
> 
> Damned straight, freakin ObjectADA that I got for school has got to be
> the slowest thing I've ever worked with, and it frequently
> crashes....very frequently.
> 
> >
> >>   -- Ada was not C, thus perceived worthless for Unix and Windows.
> >
> >I've been of the opinion that compilers need to add internal error
> >checking since I got into this business:  the standard "buffer
> >overflow"/"stack overflow" exploits in things like webservers just
> >demonstrates that even if the people who write the code probably KNOW
> >BETTER, they don't reliably implement error checks.  
> >
> >Does this mean that C and C++ are bad per se?  
> >
> >No:  it just means that a lot of code goes into production systems
> >that does not implement error checking that freshman computer science
> >101 demanded one design and build in.
> >The idea of designing/building error checking into your code, at least
> >in CS101, has been pretty consistent over the years;  the idea of not
> >bothering, since "it's just an irrelevent academic exercize, has also
> >been pretty common to language specific training over the years, too.
> 
> I disagree, shit in my C.S. 101 programming class (which is guess
> what, ADA) my instructor took points OFF my first two projects because
> I implemented Error checking and handling (for constraint and invalid
> input errors).  I would have to say that I said "fuck errors" for my
> third design.  Well, they just taught me that error checking isn't a
> good thing.
> 
> >
> >[The first time I took CS 101 was 1974, using PL1; I've retaken
> >selected CS, IS, and SE courses ever since:  including the
> >introductory CS101 in 1991 (ISO Pascal), 1995 (Microsoft C), and 1997
> >(JAVA) and noted that EVERY TIME they emphacized writing error
> >detecting/error tolerent code.]
> 
> Well, it's 1998, I'm in C.S. 101 at the University of Cincinnati, RWC
> and we're learning how to badly code ADA (i.e. forget about code
> errors, concentrate on "design documents")
> 
> Wish they would just teach me C, teach me GOOD C, teach me GREAT C,
> teach my how not to screw up C so I could write anything.  Anyone
> wonder why the object ADA compiler and GUI program is written in C?
> Because with a bit of extra work FASTER programs can be written in C
> that do the same thing that ADA will do.
> 
> >
> >ADA (and Pascal and Eiffel and half a dozen other unfashionable
> >languages) was a step in the direction of moving some of the neglected
> >portions of the software design/engineering/implementation process out
> >of the hands of the coder and into the realm of the automated tool
> >(i.e., the language's syntax forces it or the compiler does it for
> >you).
> >
> >>   -- Mismanagement by the DOD.
> >
> >No argument there:  establish a requirement and then arbitrarily
> >waiver the requirement is mismanagement.
> >
> >>   -- No hyped technology that it could be piggybacked on. (Like C,
Java)
> >
> >What's the relevance?  
> >
> >The announced intent of ADA was to provide a way to produce better
> >(reliability/maintainability sense) code that could be reused.  
> >
> >That the industry was/is still driven by coders using handicraft
> >worker's perspectives and by some (or most) upper management with a
> >"don't spend a penny that you don't have to since everything is based
> >on quarterly profit" perspective rather than not isn't exactly a
> >glowing review of the industry.
> >
> >>   -- Winning cold war sucked most of the life out of the defense
field.
> >
> >Maybe.  Or maybe the lack of QRC program quick-fixes every 14 months
> >for mission critical threats isn't relevant.  
> >
> >> 
> >> So it was more like "Ada sucks! and ... this Hoare guys says so too!".
> >>
> >Sure:  and we're still floundering on in an industry where pre-1970
> >techniques such as DOCUMENTATION and VERSION CONTROL seem to be mostly
> >regarded as wasteful, unnecessary, or pointless.
> >>
> >> Jay
> 
> Now that you bring that up, I got into trouble for having too many
> comment blocks in my code, WFT is this?  I could have handed my
> project to anyone in that room and they would have been able to read
> it and understand what I was doing easily from my comments.  I've
> always been told, the more, the better.  I hate my C.S. class, can't
> wait until the spring when I get to take C (which I know a bit), and
> learn how to do it RIGHT.
> 
> 
> All my points have been based on my own experience, yours may differ,
> my point was.  In my C.S. class I'm being told NOT to do error
> handling, we'll cover error handling in a few quarters, that's not
> until chaper 45.....etc.  And that commenting your source is bad (he
> wants one comment block at the top of the program, with name, date,
> version, short description, that's it.  It's not all us, it's our
> teachers, who are just about 80 years old, and want us to follow
> exactly what they did.
> 
> PLUTO of ilL
> 	pluto1@choice.NOSPAM-NOSPAM.net
> 
> C-ya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>