Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...

[Mike Roske <mroske@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>]

John F. Bode wrote:
> 
> In article <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> Kevin D. Quitt,
> kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> >I do the same in C.  The problem is that Ada won't *let* you use your superior
> >skill, i.e., nothing is gained by it.  For someone who knows what they're
> >doing, it's just as easy to write good, clean, safe code in C (or assembly, or
> >*any* language) as it is in Ada.
> The point is, you may be able to write good, clean, safe code in C.  You
> may be able to write good, clean, safe code in FORTRAN, or COBOL, or
> Pascal, or BASIC, or assembler.  But you can't really *know* that it's
> good, clean, safe code until the testing phase, which is usually the
> phase that gets cut short because of budget or schedule slips.  By being
> so picky, Ada forces you to write good, clean, safe code AS YOU ARE
> DEVELOPING IT.
> 
> What is considered C's greatest asset is also its greatest failing for
> developing large, robust systems: it assumes that you, the programmer,
> know what you are doing at all times.  That's a bad assumption to make
> for a lot of us (me included).

I have to disagree a little bit here.  I don't believe Ada FORCES you to
write good, clean, safe code.  It just makes certain bad things more
difficult to accomplish.  Having had the experience of guiding
(shepherding? ;-)  ) several 'C' code writers into writing more
structured software, I can tell you that it is just as easy to write
bad, dirty, dangerous code in Ada.  And we didn't really *know* it was
dirty and dangerous until the testing phase.  It met all of the Ada
guidelines and STILL corrupted memory (bad pointer allocation).

Bottom line:  ENGINEERS who know how to build STRUCTURED SOFTWARE will
do so no matter what the language.  CODERS who only know the syntax will
have problems no matter what the language.

Also speaking for myself,
Mike Roske