Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?

[sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!milano!teenwolf.mcc.com!srogers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Steve Rogers)]

In article <EACHUS.92Dec18164915@oddjob.mitre.org> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Rob
ert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.141448.13862@mcc.com> srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com (Steve Ro
gers) writes:
>
>   I'm not sure this is true; the Barnes Ada book has LOTS of examples that
>   violate the LRM...
>
>   Which edition?  The first edition was published before the ANSI (83)
>standard was finalized.  However, it wasn't really Ada 80, more like
>81 1/2.
>

The edition I am looking at is the 3rd edition.  Two examples:  The
FRAME program on page 325 violates LRM 9.1.4 - the type of the task
cannot be used as a typemark within the task itself.  It's easy to
see what the program means, but it doesn't comple.  There is a task
example on page 311 that has nested accepts for the same entry which
violates LRM 9.5(8).  Again, its clear what the program intends, but
it has been simplified in a way that keeps it from compiling.  These
are the latest ones I have noticed.  It seems to me that it would be
better to include such details in examples (certainly after several
hundered pages) so that the student/reader learns to see Ada and
the LRM as a consistent whole, rather than a lot of nit-picky
rules that get in the way.

I'm assuming that these things have been left in on purpose and
reflect a particular approach to teaching rather than simple
oversight. This simplification is consistent with the practice
I have seen in my CS education (addressed in my previous post)
and it is the 3rd edition, after all.  It is not my intent
to critisize this book - I bought the first edition and I'll
probably buy the 4th edition.  I'm addressing a particular
method of teaching CS.  The piecemeal approach is not as good
as a wholistic approach. I think students need to learn to
see the language as a consistent wholistic system, rather than
a hodge-podge box of semantic tools.  I think it is easier to
see this aspect of programming languages in Ada than most
others.  This is why I think it makes a good first language,
despite its complexity (just leave off tasks at first).

-- 
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com