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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a9b0810d3106d9b8 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elias_Salom=E3o_Helou_Neto?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Fun with C Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <33973ba6-c390-4af1-9116-6facb12e2878@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> References: <27cf3992-4132-4483-9110-adc7a089cd4a@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <54108d8d-4e7c-4901-bd5e-819d27720d48@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <4daa8fc6$0$7652$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <37428a21-61b4-4cdf-9897-7b84252f8fce@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <4dab6906$0$6893$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <57a1fa4b-4730-41a8-be8a-82061ef9dc22@x37g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <4daca6ba$0$6773$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 186.223.216.44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1303175450 17024 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2011 01:10:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=186.223.216.44; posting-account=8auP9QoAAACkSx2qxJhP83KA6-tg78E8 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8 SUSE/7.0.528.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/7.0.528.0 Safari/534.8,gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19851 Date: 2011-04-18T18:10:50-07:00 List-Id: > Uhm, no, that's a misunderstanding, Ada requires quite some thinking, > it is just that its basic types do not require so much thinking. > > I should stress one *major* concern of my favorite approach to > language definition: > > Smart brains should not have to spend time with tackling basic > programming techniques. =A0In any language. =A0They should have all > their thinking capacity engaged in thinking about smart solutions. > Not in keeping track of types' implicit sizes. That's wasted effort. > (PC-lint -w 4 seems to confirm this view.) There is no time spent thinking about promotions in C when you learn it. It is surely mor difficult to learn, so you've still made your point. > > If mastering a relatively basic feature of a language requires > much learning, then this investment should be compared to its results. > What is the return on investment a programmer spent on implicit > type size education, say? > > Among the observable results are these: > > (a) you know how to use basic programming features > > (b) you take pride in this ability > > (c) you can set yourself apart from others without the skill > > Which skill is, nota bene, knowing how to write basics. Ok, I understand, just please notice that I am not taking pride for anything. It is quite the opposite, those who don't know the basics should be ashamed of screaming "C sucks". > > > Of course Ada is a better approach for the masses. > > Certainly not in full. =A0Like C++. Because no big, detailed language > will ever work for the masses. =A0Subsets may do so, as a starting > point, I think. > > > However, here is my piece of advice: it won't work. See Ariane 5's > > example. > > I understand your idea, I think, but it is this very example that > has surprisingly little to do with languages, in spite of all > the ambitious remarks made about the case. =A0Have you had time to > look into the report? I did not. But what I meant was basically that: people will keep doing dumbness because they are just people (me included). No matter what language is used. > > Ada may give programmers a false sense of security, leading > > to even more sloppiness. > > Hmm... Is there an operational definition useful to turn this claim > into a hypothesis? =A0I had thought that Ada culture nurtures awareness > of security issues more than false beliefs in "secure languages". No there is not and I should not have said that without thinking a little bit more about it. > > > Surely Ada would be a good and justifiable choice for most industrial > > programming projects, but this is not what C was planned for - don't > > blame it. > > Complaints were addressing using C in industrial projects because of the > effects it has in industrial projects. =A0There is evidence that differen= t > fundamental type =A0systems help non-dumb people solve their problems mor= e > successfully. =A0People will still be using C libraries and additional > code generators, as a replacement for a better suited type system. I would like to see this evidence. > > If something is going to replace C, it sure mustn't look like Ada. > Just be like it in some ways. =A0That's the crucial part, I think. > Keeps face.