Senseless Bashing

[CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL]

>Then perhaps you could explain the total dominance of C in the  
>mini/micro world, the only completely healthy segment of the computer  
>market?  The last figures I've read indicated that 65 percent of all  
>software development in this world was being done in C, and the next  
>highest figure for any other language was around six percent.  Are  
>Borland, MicroSoft, Lotus, Ashton-Tate, WordPerfect, and all of  
>those companies just that stupid?  
  
  
Anyone can pick a metric to justify their favorite software, but  
does it really solve anything? A COBOL advocate can justify using COBOL  
because there are more lines of it than anything else. A MS-DOS advocate  
can justify MS-DOS, can 35 million MS-DOS users be wrong? I'm not interested  
in using software just because my neighbor does.
  
Also, a large (in Lotus 123 case almost 100%) portion of the s/w is 
written in assembler. Are they stupid for using assembler instead of C? 
Not in this case. I spend a lot of time (too much) writing s/w for 
MS-DOS machines. The biggest problem is the 640K limit (and 64K 
segments). I think you will find the super fast Borland and Microsoft 
products are written almost entirely in assembler. But neither you nor I
would advocating the use of assembler.

  
On the plus side for HOL's (C, Ada, etc), look at the classic Word 
Processing war between Microsoft and Word Perfect. MS Word wins all the 
benchmark's in terms of speed since it is written using MS MASM. Word 
Perfect is slower since it is written in C - but look who has ported  
their software to so maaaany different machines! If this were a race for
market share, the fastest (MS Word) has actually lost.
 
 
 
>IBM was and is committed to PL/1, the PC-Jr, OS/2, MCA...  Apparently,  
>they have simply added Ada to their list of big-time losers with which  
>(temporarily) there is a profit to be made.  
>   
  
Put simply, "IBM should be committed". Just kidding. IBM chooses what  
they think will reap the greatest profits.  OS/2 and MCA could have just  
as well as been UNIX and NuBus, etc. If IBM is indeed going to use Ada in
a big way, it's because their accountants told them to.
  
  
>The best compile times I've ever heard of either on a VAX class machine  
>or a 386 is around 1000/2000 lines/minute;  Turbo C is around 15000 on a  
>fast 286, Zortech C++ about the same, Turbo Pascal around 40000 on a fast  
>286;  God knows what they run at on a 386.  We're talking about at least  
>a two-order-of-magnitude differential.  
  
  
The problem is that they are all MS-DOS hosted, what about us VMX/UNIX
users.   And as stated above, these products are written in assembler
and forever  doomed to 8088 architecture. Most of the Ada compilers are
written in Ada - so what is actually being compared is an Ada compiler
written in Ada VS a C compiler written in assembler. 
  
  
>Ada started in 79;  taking 6 years to write a validated compiler doesn't  
>speak favorably of your efforts.  World War II was fought in less time.  
  
The final Ada spec was 1983, the first compiler to pass validation was  
1984/5.  
  
  
  
  
My primary reason for reading these various BB's are for information  
exchange. It's unfortunate that so many people get off on bashing a  
different point of view. I own a CBM Amiga and read the Amiga BB, but  
have to read through countless (and senseless) lines of IBM bashers.  
Years ago, the AI BB spent half their time putting C down, now they  
spend half their time on the transition from LISP to C. And on it goes.  

-- joe
-------