Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[Mike Ryer]

Someone asks why we Ada enthusiasts don't post in the C newsgroups.

My reason is that I am so sick of the C enthusiasts posting in the Ada group
that I would not want to commit the same sin.

I read comp.lang.ada because I'm interested in Ada.  The language wars are
offensive.  If you think C is a better language than Ada, post *that* in the
C newsgroups.

I agree with the general point that Ada people should get more information 
out into the general community.  However, stuff about the joys of language
X in the language Y newsgroup is a disservice.

-- Mike Ryer

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu]

I used to read comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.  For a while, I got a
big kick out of comp.lang.c++ and their discussion of standardization
issues, which the Ada community addressed and (mostly) resolved a long
time ago.  I even posted to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ once or
twice.  (The latter was during a discussion of what is known in Ada as
"elaboration".  The people in c.l.c++ were struggling to understand
the concept, as it's implicit, rather than explicit, in the language.)
But, I don't want to become the C/C++ equivalent of people like Ted
Holden and Fred McCall and start or contribute to comp.lang.jihad.

In other newsgroups (comp.lang.modula-3, comp.realtime and comp.object
for instance), I've posted occasional messages about Ada experiences,
when relevant.  Both c.l.mod-3 and c.obj manage to avoid religious
wars.  

But, as I've pointed out on comp.lang.ada, I've found the C community
disturbingly narrow with respect to other languages.  This has
occasionally spilled over to other newsgroups, such as
comp.infosystems, when someone posts a question on COBOL (clearly
within focus), and 3 or 4 C hackers jump up and say "Don't use COBOL,
it's crap.  Use C instead."  

I've enjoyed watching the C community struggle with understanding
threads and the impact of concurrency on their programs.  In
particular, I've watched people spend lots of time discussing race
conditions, trying to find the right terms.  What's so 'funny' about
this is that most any Ada programmer who's had a basic introduction to
tasking can explain a race condition in about 20 lines of Ada.  It
goes back to the Whorf hypothesis about language and expressability.
But, when I've pointed to Ada as either a language for discussing
concurrency issues (in the abstract), or as a basis of (rather
significant) experience with concurrency (both user-side and
implementor-side), I've been either laughted at or abused, or told
"Ada has no relevance to C, and Ada tasks have no relevance to C
Threads, which are clearly superior."  

So, to answer your question, the reason I don't post to comp.lang.c or
comp.lang.c++ is simple.  I don't need the abuse from the majority of
people who read such groups.  The benefit to the minority of
open-minded people isn't worth the hasssle of dealing with all the
flames.  

During the comp.lang.ada holy wars, I've tried to keep my postings
based on my experiences, and I've tried to explain/justify my
conclusions based on my experiences.  Fred McCall's recent postings
show how the discussion can degenerate into personal ad-hominem
attacks.    

What I don't understand is why people like McCall and Holden bother to
read comp.lang.ada.  Maybe they like to see their name in "electronic
print".  It's clear that they aren't reading to learn anything about
Ada; their minds are already made up on this topic.

				dave

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <1992Dec8.094613.13886@u.washington.edu> bketcham@carson.u.washington.edu (B
enjamin Ketcham) writes:


>OK, I have a question.  I've seen a lot of complaints on this newsgroup
>about how the DoD and other Ada advocates preach only to the converted,
>and never try to make the case for Ada's supposed superiority to C++
>(or any other assorted languages) in a truly public forum.

>Just about every time I bother to read this newsgroup, I see a large
>proportion of highly emotional bickering about Ada's relevance and value
>compared to other languages, including quite a bit of (what seems to me
>to be) fairly well-informed and cogent rebuttal from people who prefer
>C or C++.

>If Ada is so great, and (as I have seen asserted, without factual
>support) has solved a number of important problems that C++ is still
>struggling with, then why do I *never* see any mention of this from any
>of you folks on comp.lang.c++ or comp.lang.c?  

They don't do it for the same reason that fans of C/C++ shouldn't be
starting such threads here; it's not the charter of the newsgroup.
The different situation seems to be happening here periodically, where
some fan of Ada will spontaneously bash C/C++ (out of what I tend to
think of these days as 'Amiga Syndrome' -- they're convinced they have
a technically superior solution and just get incredibly frustrated
that the market isn't recognizing that, so they bash the current
market favorite).  Those are the 'Ada wars' posts I tend to respond to
here.  I tend to have a similar reaction whenever anyone starts or
tries to start a 'language war', no matter what the involved languages
are, although of course I seldom see the ones between languages in
which I have no interest and figure that bashing COBOL is ALWAYS fair.
;-)

>Are C/C++ people just too
>bourgeouis for you Ada enthusiasts to bother talking down to?  If you
>complain about nobody selling Ada to the larger community where the real
>decisions about what language to use are made, why then don't you pop
>over to the C/C++ groups and reveal to them the fantastic solutions that
>Ada offers to the seemingly insoluble problems that they are only now
>realizing the existence of?  You might win a few converts, which is what
>I seem to gather that everybody on this newsgroup would like.

Or they might be judged to be as obnoxious as Amigoids who do this
sort of thing are; couple that with the mandate, and it sounds to me
like a sure way to LOSE converts.

>If it's so much better, why won't you defend it in the open field?  Sure,
>you'd get some irrational flames, but if your points were so logically
>sensible, I think that most of the thoughtful and open-minded people on
>C/C++ would have to concede that you had a point, if indeed you did.

Because doing that sort of thing is generally considered rude and
obnoxious on USENET?  People who are interested in Ada read the Ada
group (which is why I read it), people who are interested in C and C++
read those groups (which is why I read them), and trying to start
language wars in any of them is generally felt to be in incredibly bad
taste.  Have you read all the new user stuff about manners and such
before you suggested this?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <1992Dec8.141314.25052@inmet.camb.inmet.com> ryer@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Mike
 Ryer) writes:

>Someone asks why we Ada enthusiasts don't post in the C newsgroups.

>My reason is that I am so sick of the C enthusiasts posting in the Ada group
>that I would not want to commit the same sin.

Uh, could you please remove the definite article from the phrase "the
C enthusiasts" in the preceding?  What you see here (when it is
started by a C proponent) is a very small minority -- most people
don't feel any great need to try to tell you what language you should
be using, and simply wish they were allowed the same option.  And if
you think the same sort of thing doesn't happen over in the C groups,
you must be reading a different USENET than the one that I get.

>I read comp.lang.ada because I'm interested in Ada.  The language wars are
>offensive.  If you think C is a better language than Ada, post *that* in the
>C newsgroups.

No, that doesn't belong in the C newsgroups any more than C/C++
bashing really belongs here.

>I agree with the general point that Ada people should get more information 
>out into the general community.  However, stuff about the joys of language
>X in the language Y newsgroup is a disservice.

On this one I agree.  I would add that comments about how language Y
is crap and the people who use it are ignorant fools probably doesn't
belong in the newsgroup for either language X or language Y.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <EMERY.92Dec8093729@dr_no.mitre.org> emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) wri
tes:

>I used to read comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.  For a while, I got a
>big kick out of comp.lang.c++ and their discussion of standardization
>issues, which the Ada community addressed and (mostly) resolved a long
>time ago.  I even posted to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ once or
>twice.  (The latter was during a discussion of what is known in Ada as
>"elaboration".  The people in c.l.c++ were struggling to understand
>the concept, as it's implicit, rather than explicit, in the language.)
>But, I don't want to become the C/C++ equivalent of people like Ted
>Holden and Fred McCall and start or contribute to comp.lang.jihad.

Pardon me, but you just did.  My apoplogies for thinking that stupid
language bashing doesn't really have a place in ANY newsgroup (unless
someone wants to start some '.advocacy' groups or something).  In any
case, unless you have the force of government behind you, ANY
standardization process tends to be something of a 'struggle', each
and every time.

>I've enjoyed watching the C community struggle with understanding
>threads and the impact of concurrency on their programs.  In
>particular, I've watched people spend lots of time discussing race
>conditions, trying to find the right terms.  What's so 'funny' about
>this is that most any Ada programmer who's had a basic introduction to
>tasking can explain a race condition in about 20 lines of Ada.  

Interesting, but I have to wonder just which 'C' community you're
referring to, since anyone who has studied any computer science has
been taught about race conditions, livelock, deadlock, et al.  It's
hardly necessary to know Ada to get taught this (my school taught
neither C nor Ada, for example, but still taught this).  You seem to
fail to draw a line between high school kids who use C and people who
are professionals and use C -- to you, they are all "the C community". 

>So, to answer your question, the reason I don't post to comp.lang.c or
>comp.lang.c++ is simple.  I don't need the abuse from the majority of
>people who read such groups.  The benefit to the minority of
>open-minded people isn't worth the hasssle of dealing with all the
>flames.  

Pity that the reason you don't do it is because you have better
manners than to behave that way, wouldn't you say?

>During the comp.lang.ada holy wars, I've tried to keep my postings
>based on my experiences, and I've tried to explain/justify my
>conclusions based on my experiences.  Fred McCall's recent postings
>show how the discussion can degenerate into personal ad-hominem
>attacks.    

Only in response to yours, Dave, which is one of the more
'interesting' things about online discussions in general.  One person
makes a bunch of snide remarks categorizing other people, and then
when someone objects to that, THEY are engaging in "personal
ad-hominem attacks".

>What I don't understand is why people like McCall and Holden bother to
>read comp.lang.ada.  Maybe they like to see their name in "electronic
>print".  It's clear that they aren't reading to learn anything about
>Ada; their minds are already made up on this topic.

I read here because I am interested in and work in a place where Ada
is heavily used.  So what's YOUR problem, Dave?  Why do YOU read here?
Because you need a pulpit from which to bash people who use C/C++,
just because it is currently clobbering Ada in the marketplace?

I think you've lost whatever objectivity you may have ever had, Dave.
Would you care to show me where, pray tell, I have come in here
posting about how Ada is crap and C/C++ are wonderful and the only
reason people would pick Ada is because they aren't competent enough
to deal with the potential pitfalls of C/C++ so they need a language
with training wheels?  No, I haven't done any of that.  What I have
done is responded to YOUR remarks about how C/C++ are crap only chosen
by people who are abysmally ingnorant and know only one language and
that if they had any sense they would have picked Ada and C/C++ would
vanish from the market.  Apparently in your universe this is enough to
indicate that my mind is "already made up".

Frankly, I can see why you have problems when you deal with "the C
community".  One is left wondering what ELSE is "clear" to you that
doesn't seem to correspond to reality.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada vs. C/C++...

[agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!yorkohm!minster!mjl-b]

In article <1992Dec8.094613.13886@u.washington.edu> bketcham@carson.u.washingto
n.edu (Benjamin Ketcham) writes:
>If Ada is so great, and (as I have seen asserted, without factual
>support) has solved a number of important problems that C++ is still
>struggling with, then why do I *never* see any mention of this from any
>of you folks on comp.lang.c++ or comp.lang.c?

Because the point of groups like comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ and
comp.lang.ada is not to bicker over which language or language culture is
"best". They're groups for people who have a common interest in the given
langauge.

>Are C/C++ people just too
>bourgeouis for you Ada enthusiasts to bother talking down to?

This sort of comment just winds people up and does little to help
rational argument.

[more deleted]

>If it's so much better, why won't you defend it in the open field?  Sure,
>you'd get some irrational flames, but if your points were so logically
>sensible, I think that most of the thoughtful and open-minded people on
>C/C++ would have to concede that you had a point, if indeed you did.

The trouble is that the two sides have less common ground than you imagine,
and also because people, intrinsically, don't agree with one another. At
this point it all boils down to what you believe is right... and you're in a
flame war.

An example of this is that I like the way Ada's semantics are very well
defined (there are holes, of course, but generally it's pretty good). An
acquaintance doesn't like Ada because he think's it's overspecified.

This leads most people onto the "who is right?" tack, but that's the wrong
question -- there isn't really a "right" and "wrong" -- we like or dislike
the fine semantic detail for different reasons.

The best thing you can do, if you want to answer your question, is to decide
what is important to you, look at the two languages and make the decision
for yourself. It is your choice of what is important that will have most
bearing on the outcome.

>--ben

Mat

| Mathew Lodge                      | "I don't care how many times they go    |
| mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk          |  up-tiddly-up-up. They're still gits."  |
| Langwith College, Uni of York, UK |  -- Blackadder Goes Forth               |