Re: C++ to Ada?

[bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com (Michael Hunter)]

ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
>From: Bill Wolf, Clemson
> 
>>   I personally would consider the use of a C++-to-Ada preprocessor for
>>   the development of new code to be entirely out of the spirit of Ada.
> 
>Why are you and your friends even considering such a thing, Bill?
>Having problems with Ada again?  I mean, I'm not sitting here
>considering translating Smalltalk or Eiffel into C++ or any of MY
>languages...
wow ted...didn't know that you developed the Eiffle AND Smalltalk
languages...oh..you mean that those are the ones that you use..ah got it...it
is just that the languages that we speak here in America is so amgibuous and
nowhere as good as the one they speak over in England....
>"...caught from some unhappy master             Poe
>whom unmerciful disaster
>followed fast, and followed faster..."
> 
>"...till this sorry, wretched bastard           Holden
>turned to grace, to C once more;
>flung the Ada monster back
>into the night's plutonian shore,
>crying 'Never... nevermore'"
> 
>or something like that.
wow...that took guts...(not much more though)
>>   Similarly, the undisciplined practices which
>>   are common among the users of C and C++ would not simply vanish during the
>>   translation process.....
> 
>Undisciplined practices?
I actually take offense to that also.  A bad Ada programmer is a bad c
programm (oh, and ted, it is c and C++...not C and C++) is a bad C++ program
is a ....  If a person is undisciplined in c Adas training wheels might make
it more difficult for them to hang themselves...but it will not make them a
better programmer.
> 
>Such as bringing projects in on time and under budget??   Can't have
>that, now, can we?
The language has little to do with bringing projects in on time and under
budget.....the requirements->design->implementation flow, management and
technical staff have more to do with that then the language (IMHO).
>There has been some dispute here recently concerning the term "high level"
>(i.e. that Ada is a "high level" language as opposed to C, which isn't).
> 
>The truth is that the dichotomy is roughly as follows:  of major languages
>at present, C++ is a high level language (OOP).  C is a high-structured,
>low-level language, a kind of a thinking-man's assembler, if you will.  Ada
>is a high-overhead, low-performance language, a non-thinking-man's dis-
>assembler, intended for disassembling projects, careers, reputations,
>psychological profiles, aeroplanes (such as the French Airbus) etc. etc.
> 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
My personal opionin is that c, C++, and Ada are all HOLs.  c feels more like a
low level language due to the fact that pointers are first class types...but
that doesn't make it any more of a portable assembler then having and
extensive macro package makes assembly language into a HOL on any machine.

oh..and if you are going to prove something is bad (ie., Ada) you have to give
a proof...not examples (the French Airbus)...this is basic baby mathematics. 
To disprove you proof, you opponent just needs to give an example where your
hypothesis fails.

                                        Michael Hunter

PS. Why am I responding to a madmans rantings...I don't know....


Mike Hunter - Box's and CPU's from HELL: iapx80[012]86, PR1ME 50 Series, 1750a
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper
INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com