From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:41:: with SMTP id t1mr57381251qkt.423.1564039588622; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:90d:: with SMTP id w13mr18013589oih.175.1564039588329; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!b26no420857qtq.0!news-out.google.com!a5ni1799qtd.0!nntp.google.com!b26no420849qtq.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:26:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5fb45b9c-d7da-447c-999e-0e8bcce2eed5@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.84.69; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.84.69 References: <5d9a8728-3c5b-4caf-b765-a455ba4d3523@googlegroups.com> <5fb45b9c-d7da-447c-999e-0e8bcce2eed5@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1dc13d50-7606-4530-b5cc-19e07b4d4938@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: How to make Ada popular. Get rid of ";" at end of statement. From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:26:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56934 Date: 2019-07-25T00:26:28-07:00 List-Id: > The one concrete reason I've ever heard for using C or C++ instead of Mod= ula-2 or Ada is that C/C++ allow you to perform pointer arithmetic Really? I would never consider that reason myself. But I have two others that I consider important: 1. C or C++ allow to reuse the existing C or C++ libraries, of which there = are too many to ignore them. In fact, in some areas like embedded systems (= which is where Ada tries to compete) those libraries are essential to get a= nything done. Chips are too complex to program them via their register-leve= l interfaces and vendors deliver only C libraries for their products. No, the Ada's Interfaces.C does not even come close to be reasonably useful= . It can be used only with those C interfaces that were specifically design= ed to facilitate such use. With others it is too much trouble. 2. Again with regard to embedded systems, hardware vendors provide their ow= n IDEs. It's not just about libraries, see above, it's about the whole inte= grated approach to use the hardware from configuration to synthesis to prog= ramming. These IDEs are oriented towards C and C++ and with each new genera= tion using any other language is more and more difficult. That is, it is ge= nuinely *easier* to use C and C++. > I had a conversation with a computer science professor the other day abou= t security in automobiles, where a lot of people are using C or C++. This is another source of misconception. Critical systems (not only automot= ive, but also medical, aviation, etc.) do not rely on programming languages= to achieve reliability. They rely on independent verification processes, w= hich also happen to account for most (like in >95%) of expenses. And Ada do= es nothing to make these processes any easier, because while belonging to t= he same family of programming technologies (3rd gen, imperative, etc.), its= required verification technology is essentially the same. So why bother? I would never consider semicolons or pointer arithmetic to be the decision-= making points, but the above two subjects are killing the prospects for mak= ing Ada more popular in my domain. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com