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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Mike Roske Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/15 Message-ID: <3212F127.41C67EA6@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174350855 references: <31daad10.57288085@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <31ebfbd7.330061022@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <31EE19D1.6977@lfwc.lockheed.com> <31efe069.63062188@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4sopkp$dao@itfhps00.itf.hcsd.ca> <31f3c396.238311543@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <01bb78b1$28455ec0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <31F613F3.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <01bb7bf9$b89a1740$96ee6fcf@timhome2> <01bb7da5$ef97cf00$96ee6fcf@timhome2> <31fff06f.186046460@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4tqlb0$be02@red.interact.net.au> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Sanders mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.4 sun4m) Date: 1996-08-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Alan Brain wrote: > Really? I'm flabbergasted. In 15 years I've never met a single person who, after > programming in Ada for more than 6 months, preferred programming in C. Glad to meet you. I've developed many thousands of lines of C and Ada83 and actually prefer C. Ok, most of that experience has been in small (35K-75K SLOC) embedded systems without MAJOR safety requirements, and that may make a difference. And I haven't yet taken a close look at Ada95, and that may make a difference too. I understand Ada, and all of the data abstractions and structure it enforces. However, as a software engineer who believes in structured development (in any language), I find Ada too restrictive. Many implementations help in this, providing add-on packages for things like C-type strings (useful for interfacing with many OS calls). However, the language does not readily provide for some constructs I have found very useful, such as pointers to subprograms, and assigning a pointer to an existing object. (yes, both can be done, but not as easily as in C). I also continually fight an issue that was mentioned earlier: size. Most of my projects have been PROM limited in executable size. I have found that most C compilers generate tighter, better optimized code. The added checking that Ada compilers provide before and after each subprogram call and assignment is unnecessary in many cases. Admittedly, this is more of an implementation issue. There must be some Ada compilers that optimize well, but I haven't yet had the pleasure of using them. IMHO, C is a "better" language when structured development is used. -- *-------------------------------------------------------* * Michael Roske * Sanders, A Lockheed Martin Company * mroske@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com * (603) 885-9240 *-------------------------------------------------------* * "I'd rather be flying RC..." *-------------------------------------------------------*