Re: Why ADA?

[mcsun!uknet!stl!crosfield!pdg@uunet.uu.net (paul goffin)]

In article <1992Mar21.235624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> das11@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

>	at my university, they stress ada development.  why should i
>	program in ada when there is c?  what does ada offer me?  please,
>	do not give me the crap that c is a glorified assembler.

>	if i program with good oo style, what does ada buy me that i
>	can not do in c?

>	dave.

Well, there's a couple of 'built-ins' in Ada that 'C' dos'n't have, e.g.:

  1) Interrupts
  2) Exceptions.
  3) Multi-tasking.
  4) Ability to control type representations.

But these are just details really.

The real point, and this is something you may meet later in your working
life, is that if you need to get something done that requires MORE THAN
ONE PERSON, you need to make the 'right' way the 'easy' way.

With a good 'C' compiler, a good linker, a very good 'lint' (try
Gimble 'Flexelint' BTW) and GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT, you _can_ achieve
pretty robust 'C'.  But, the first time something is needed 'in a hurry'
the temptation to take the easy way and, say, ignore 'lint' comes in.

With Ada, 'lint' and good scope controls are 'built-in'.  It is
actually _harder_ to get bad Ada to compile than good Ada, so, as
we're all pretty lazy really, we do the eazy thing and write good
Ada.

Yes, one can write good 'C', but under pressure to get it done fast,
most people don't.

Paul.
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  My opinions are my OWN. - no one would pay for this! +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+