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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Sandy McPherson Subject: Re: Ada is 'better' than C because... Date: 1996/08/09 Message-ID: <320B0ECE.7408@wgs.estec.esa.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173259920 references: <01bb7bf9$b89a1740$96ee6fcf@timhome2> <4tj43k$16r@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3205F296.41C6@wgs.estec.esa.nl> <320729F1.1ADC@lmtas.lmco.com> to: Ken Garlington content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: European Space Agency mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4) Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Thanks for the info, it is very interesting. I also have no particular axe to grind about the languages, as I am a fan of both C and Ada, I just happen to have to use C a lot more often (and have to apply QAC and Purify rigourously) and in the sorts of programs I deal with (spacecraft simulations) I have seen no evidence of wildly differing error densities (maybe because we're better at C than Ada of course!). The more info I can get on both languages (and C++) the better. I do however have an axe to grind with people who make statements like: "the C family of languages are inherently dangerous, because they have pointers" to paraphrase the post I was replying to, and are not prepared to or capable of providing evidence to support the statement. -- Sandy McPherson MBCS CEng. tel: +31 71 565 4288 (w) ESTEC/WAS P.O. Box 299 NL-2200AG Noordwijk