Re: "C" vrs ADA

[smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter)]

In article <253@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes:
>	  The ada language is far more than just a language. Ada includes
>	  standards for editors,compilers, and run-time symbolic debuggers.

I have yet to see any kind of documentation for an Ada editor, compiler, or
run-time debugger.  The only document from the DoD that I am aware of is
the Ada Language Reference Manual.

>	                         There were, beleive it or not, an A language
>	  and a B language that preceded it.

The way I understand it, and from what I have read, there was first BCPL,
then B, and finally C.  What's next?  P?  There was a language called Eh
developed at the University of Waterloo in the 70's by M. A. Malcom, which
is somewhat C-like, but C already existed then.

>	                                             This standard was 
>	  named ADA, (the name of the mistress of Charles Babbage, who 
>	  invented a punched card driven loom, considered to be the first
>	  computer, she was rumored to be the first person to ever write
>	  a program on punched cards- why her name is appropriate for a
>	  real-time language is a mystery).

Ada was not Babbage's mistress, but just a friend of his.  She did not 
invent the card driven loom, some fellow named Jacquard did.  What she
did do is write programs for Babbage's Difference Engine, and his never
completed Analytical Engine.  (It is rumoured that she had a complete
implementation of the Star Trek game :-)  Her name is appropriate because
she was the first programmer.  Too bad they used it for such a horrid
language.

>	         Be aware that it is a very complex language

That's for sure.  Beats PL/I though.  The problem with Ada (as with PL/I) is
that it is so big, it is hard to ensure that one's compiler is reliable.  This
is ironic, since one of the aims of having a single programming language is
to reduce errors in coding, by having everyone think the same.  It is also
scary when you consider that they want to use it to control missile systems,
the star wars (note the lowercase, Star Wars was a movie) system, etc.
(Carnegie

>	                   Don't expect to see ADA used very widely outside
>	  of the DOD environment. It will fail for the same reason that
>	  Pascal, Modula2, C, PL1, and others have failed - IBM is the 
>	  dominant force in the commercial market(~75 percent of all 
>	  commercial installations) and COBOL dominates the IBM installed
>	  base (~90 percent of IBM applications are in COBOL). 

I was not aware that Pascal and C had failed.  I believe UNIX is written in
C, as is all the mail and news software that allows us to communicate these
conflicting views.  So is the C compiler, and the UNIX FORTRAN and Pascal
compilers.  So are most systems programs these days on most systems.  Pascal
is also alive and well.  I market software that is written in Turbo Pascal,
as do many others.  The TANGO printed circuit board layout program is written
in Turbo Pascal.  COBOL on the other hand is not a language that programs are
written in much any more.  Every person I know who has ever worked with COBOL
was doing maintenance.  No one I know has ever written anything in it.

>                                                           As long as
>	  computers remain basically Von Neuman processors, no language is
>	  going to offer any advantages in the real world to a language
>	  like COBOL. 

Really?  COBOL is a big kludgy language.  Nothing written in COBOL runs
very fast.  Do you think IBM's COBOL compiler is written in COBOL?  No way.
Do you think a terminal emulator for a PC written in COBOL would be able
to keep up at over 110 baud?  Try writing an interrupt handler in COBOL 
some day.  Or a C compiler.  Or a text editor.  Or an operating system.
COBOL is too suited for writing file handling applications and not very
well suited to writing anything else.

>                 No business is going to go through the 3 to 5 years
>	  effort of retraining and converting of existing code just to
>	  satisfy the dogmatic prejudices of computer-science weenies.

No, no business is going to do this.  Why should they?  The code works
as it is.  But very few are going to write new code in COBOL.  If COBOL
were so great, don't you think your "weenies" would be using it.  COBOL
is a dinosaur which has just not YET become extinct.  It will.  If it
wasn't for your "weenies" though, you wouldn't have COBOL, or computers.

>	                                             Therefore if
>	  you want a career in military/aerospace, go for ADA.

Unfortunately for the original poster, I must agree with this.  But, do
you really want a career in military programming?  Writing programs to
kill people just doesn't sound like a good idea?  Whatever happened to
the First Law of Robotics?

Stefan Vorkoetter
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA.

The opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employer.  As
a matter of fact my employer used to teach COBOL so people could maintain
COBOL programs.  The COBOL course did not involve any WRITING of programs,
just modifying.  Now they don't teach COBOL any more.  But still, all the
opinions are mine.