* Re: Language Flames
1991-05-20 17:20 Language Flames Michael Feldman
@ 1991-05-20 19:15 ` McCook
1991-05-20 20:22 ` Kevin Simonson
1991-05-21 23:37 ` rharwood
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: McCook @ 1991-05-20 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <3208@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>Ah, yes, Messrs. Holden and Showalter: it's deja vu all over again.
>Seems we go around this loop several times a year till everyone gets bored
>with it again. Could you guys PLEASE knock it off or take it to private
>e-mail? Ted, we've heard your opinions over and over, every few months.
>I'm not judging them, merely asking that you not be so repetitious.
>Jim: leave him alone, maybe he'll go away again...
>
>Mike
AMEN!!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Flames
1991-05-20 17:20 Language Flames Michael Feldman
1991-05-20 19:15 ` McCook
@ 1991-05-20 20:22 ` Kevin Simonson
1991-05-21 23:37 ` rharwood
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Simonson @ 1991-05-20 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <3208@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
writes:
=Ah, yes, Messrs. Holden and Showalter: it's deja vu all over again.
=Seems we go around this loop several times a year till everyone gets bored
=with it again. ...
=Jim: leave him alone, maybe he'll go away again...
When I was a working person instead of a student, we had access to a
newsgroup that regularly posted what it very accurately termed religious
debates over whether Ada or C++ was better suited for the particular niche
Ada was designed to fill. I remember thinking that if I listened to all
the pros and cons, I would get some sort of a feel for the number of people
who thought each language was superior (while arguing farely close to ra-
tionally) and that I might use that as a guage of whether one language
really WAS superior.
Now that I'm a student, and am actually LEARNING C, it's a whole dif-
ferent story, and I sometimes wonder how C++, that has C as its parent,
could possibly be considered as an alternative to Ada.
I think this initial reaction of mine is typical of how many people
look at the Ada-C++ debate. After all, I was raised with Pascal and Modula
2, which are related to Ada much more than they are to C. As I code more
and more in C I keep telling myself that there are very possibly advantages
to the language that I will get to know in time. (This might not be true,
but I keep telling it to myself anyway.)
What about the question of the REAL superiority of one of the two lan-
guages? Given the strong opinions (by apparently rational people) on both
sides of the debate, I'd wager that the good points of both languages are
probably close enough together that it really is worth nobody's while to go
to the depth necessary to rigorously prove the answer to this question.
Perhaps, as somebody suggested earlier, the best idea is to keep an
open mind and see if one (or both) of the languages is fit enough to SUR-
VIVE a significant amount of time.
---Kevin Simonson
--
Murphy's Law of Aerodynamics: When the weight of the paperwork equals the
weight of the airplane, the airplane flies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Language Flames
1991-05-20 17:20 Language Flames Michael Feldman
1991-05-20 19:15 ` McCook
1991-05-20 20:22 ` Kevin Simonson
@ 1991-05-21 23:37 ` rharwood
1991-05-22 16:05 ` Michael Feldman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: rharwood @ 1991-05-21 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Aw shucks, Mike... I was hoping the flames would continue just a little longer
so that I'd have more incentive to learn the KILL option of NEWS! I HAVE heard
verbal complaints from readers of the INFO-ADA list who don't have much choice
but to labor through the whole muck.
In reality, it is a shame to have 500 and 700 line messages floating all over
the countryside which so blatantly SHOUT one's opinion. If I am successful at
starting a CompuServe Ada Forum, such opinions will be welcomed, but few people
will tolerate spending a single nickel reading articles of the tone so recently
endured here, even at only $6 or $12 an hour.
I can't and won't argue for/against C++ because I don't know the language. I
CAN argue the merits of structured design and coding. The analogy I often tout
is that coding in Ada grabs you by the arm and LEADS you down a structured
path, but coding with C -- while you CAN mold it into bricks -- tends to fall
helter-skelter in a heap of <something>.
I've had students whose first language was Pascal remark, after taking C, "Gee,
I don't know what all the fuss is about, with a little effort you can write
structured code in C just as well as you can in any other language." On the
other hand, "C-first" students generally remark: "I don't know why you go to
all that extra effort to write structured code in the first place; my version
works just as well as yours and it only took 100 lines. Oh, don't worry about
maintenance, this is just a student exercise, and if it was the real world,
someone else would have to worry about re-writing it... they'd probably just
junk it and start all over anyway." How right they are!
OK, so I don't have sworn affadavits for the above statements, but they DO
reflect the attitudes of 5 consecutive semesters of data structures students...
-----
Ray Harwood |Data Basix |Associate Faculty,
Voice: (602)721-1988 |PO Box 18324 | Pima Community College
FAX: (602)721-7240 |Tucson, AZ 85731 |Instructor in Ada and Pascal
CompuServe: 76645,1370|AppleLink: DATA.BASIX|Internet: rharwood@east.pima.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Flames
1991-05-21 23:37 ` rharwood
@ 1991-05-22 16:05 ` Michael Feldman
1991-05-23 2:18 ` Jim Showalter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Feldman @ 1991-05-22 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
Once again I'd like to plead for keeping this an Ada group. We are all
entitled to our opinions; mine is that it's not a good place for
language bashing or emotional comparisons between languages.
This is at least the 7th time in the last few years that we've gotten into
a war of words over Ada vs. the C family. I can hit the kill key, but the
poor folks who get Info-Ada digests have to slog through the flames to
read the other digested messages.
Please let's end the emotional stuff, guys. Both Ada and C++ are here to stay;
even-handed comparisons of features might be educational for us all, but this
bashing is just a waste of network bandwidth.
Ted, Jim, Ray: is this OK with you all?
Mike
PS - why don't you guys set up an alt group for language vs. language
free-for-alls? I notice the Lisp proponents are into the act now...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Flames
1991-05-22 16:05 ` Michael Feldman
@ 1991-05-23 2:18 ` Jim Showalter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Showalter @ 1991-05-23 2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
>Once again I'd like to plead for keeping this an Ada group. We are all
>entitled to our opinions; mine is that it's not a good place for
>language bashing or emotional comparisons between languages.
I could cop
out and say that Ted started it, but I won't because I disagree with
your premise. Yes, this is an Ada group, and so that is where I discuss
issues related to Ada. All of them. Would you prefer that the group
be limited to questions about Meridian compilers? Why? If the issue is
length, I apologize for the 700 liner the other day--but 500 lines of
it were originally from Ted... As for the emotion, I've been laboring
under the impression that I've kept it to a mild simmer for the past
couple of weeks. Is this not the case? I have received several e-mail
messages from people who thought my responses to Ted were factual and
not particularly emotional, which I thought was pretty promising feedback.
> why don't you guys set up a group for language vs language
>free-for-alls? I notice the Lisp proponents are into the act now...
It already exists: alt.flame ;-)
--
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. *
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread