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=3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: "midlamD" Subject: Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/10/23 Message-ID: <01bdfeaa$f1257060$7564a8c0@midlam-dale> X-Deja-AN: 404350395 References: <6skfs7$2s6$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F252DD.5187538@earthlink.net> <6t4dge$t8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6t5mtp$4ho$1@news.indigo.ie> <35FFE58C.5727@ibm.net> <3600E72E.24C93C94@cl.cam.ac.uk> <6ts1q0$vo2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <361DBC60.C153BBAD@earthlink.net> <36228EC3.4F7381FD@domain.nul> <3630b064.23189339@news.supernews.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 .) 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 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 > > > > > > >