From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,FROM_ADDR_WS, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 19 Oct 92 16:56:03 GMT From: pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!bonmot!wallace@decuac.dec.com (Richard Wal lace) Subject: An admittedly biased Ada/C++ comparison, by Ed Schonberg Message-ID: <1992Oct19.165603.16988@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> List-Id: Gregory Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) has put his finger on the real issue behind the C++/Ada religious wars -- economics. I can not agree with the slams that are put forward by Gregory. The issue behind the economic arguement is one that can be brought down to implementation and education issues. I list them here: 1) The "Law of first exposure" is the first criteria that sets an end user's expectation of what to use as an implementation language. The first exposure that a potential programmer has is an inexpensive system (IBM/PC, Mac) in high school (or at home) where the decision by the educational institution (individual) is to maximize silicon over software. So what is the cheapest "real" language to use? C of course (it used to be BASIC, remember?) because a compiler is $100's per site or free (remember Apple's give-away?) versus $10,000's per site. Next, if the student decides to attend university, the next system seen is the Unix or Unix-style O/S with the "de facto" C compiler, and if the University has sprung for a C++ compiler, that is available too (don't forget the Gnu project G++...). 2) Now take that person to the job site and the "big machines" are the same PC's and Mac's that were seen at high school and Sun/HP/Digital systems that were seen at university; And of course, what language? C/C++ of course. Remember the silicon versus software cost issue? It comes back in buckets here because the software house is a)a VERY cost conscious operation, and wants people in front of machines, and b) concerned with porting, so it will choose a simple language that has alot of ports; and since C/C++ compilers are dirt-simple to implement (not to mention de facto on Unix systems...) it is a good business choice. 3) Gregory misses an important economic issue and that is the reliability of the code that is produced under the C/C++ development paradigm. I've seen lots and lots of C code and now I'm seeing C++ code that has the same trashed-out coding style I've seen from C "hot-shots." I say to myself "surely the compiler would have complained about that, if not then why not the linter (we use several)?" and the answer is that a) no the compiler didn't, and won't, catch it, and b) the linter switches were turned off because the programmer "didn't want to see that useless noise" that was output. These would have been fatal compilation errors out of *** ANY *** Ada compiler I've used. This is the issue that the U.S. Government wants. Not to grow the individual (who is around for 20 years on a single program?) but to grow the technology so that second-sourcing -- not a well understood concept in the software industry -- can be done on the software of the Government computer software. Now if I could get an Ada given away to high schools and bundled with an O/S then I don't think there would even be a C++... but that is a topic for another discussion. Richard Wallace Digital Equipment Corporation 301 Rockrimmon Blvd. South CXO2-1/7A Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2398 (719)548-2792 "The opinions expressed are my own, Uncle Ken or Uncle Bob may, or may not, agree with me."