Re: Multitude of Problems

[jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)]

>If we're going to make comparisons, let's make them between ANSI C
>X3.159-1989 and MIL-STD-1814A Ada, not between Microsoft C, Turbo C,
>QuickC, etc, and MIL-STD-1814A Ada.  The various toy C implementations
>are not exactly known for consistency or adherence to standards.

This lets C off the hook too easily. The point I was making here was
that Ada is a standard and that Ada compilers are validated. I grant
that ANSI C is a standard, but with no compiler validation, anyone
can claim to sell an ANSI C compiler. Furthermore, with no "C mandate"
in place, the "toy C" implementations you list above (e.g. Turbo C,
Microsoft C) are quite popular (Borland sold 500,000 C => C++ upgrades
last year). So you wind up with an industry speaking multiple dialects
of C, using vendor-specific extensions, and generallyperpetuating
the very sorts of problems Ada addresses. The irony of this is that
the commercial sector in THEORY should be better at understanding the
business downside to such chaos than the government, and yet it was
the government that dreamed up Ada. I keep hoping at least a few
technical managers in some forward-looking companies will wake up one
day, realize how much money they're squandering on COBOL maintenance
and C hacking, and convert. But I'm not holding my breath.

>Jim, this was, all in all, an excellent reply to Ted Holden.  Thanks.

Thank you! It wasn't easy to keep from just foaming at the mouth and flaming.
-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *