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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal work, C,C++, and Java are the only lheadaches you need!! Date: 1997/10/30 Message-ID: <34591365.7E53@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286032894 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <34566fe9.447229@news.mindspring.com> <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com> <3456b9f3.0@news.eznet.net> <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Copeland wrote: > 1. The portability issue. C/C++ are basically portable across > platforms, NOT! You are confusing portability of the compiler for the language with portability of applications written in the language. C is full of things that are implimentation defined, e.g., "long", whereas Ada lets you easily define precision in a platform-independent fashion. And, yes, I know that you can mask those deficiencies of C by using the preprocessor, but that just adds another layer of complexity that isn't needed in Ada. > 2. Pascal and Ada (which is often called a highly enriched Pascal) > weren't designed as application development vehicles - whereas C/C++ > were. Wrong on both counts. Ada was designed for applications development, and C was designed to be easily compilable on a small machine. > Pascal was invented as a teaching tool for structured and module > problem solving, to show and overcome the faults of weakly typed and > inherently undisciplined coding languages of the past (e.g. COBOL, > ForTran, BASIC, assembler, etc.). Actually, ALGOL 60 had already done that. > Ada, OTOH, was designed for implementation of secure and fail-safe > systems for the Government. It was based on Pascal concepts (very strong > typing, modularity, consistency, etc.), but was taken much farther than > was useful to the general world. Learning Ada should be considered an > educational experience, at best, because no one uses it. Correct, no one but business, education and government uses it. This news group wouldn't exist if no one used Ada, nor would publishers bother with books about it. > And I agree it's very hard to learn and work with, even coming from a > Pascal background. Really? I found Ada to be a snap to learn; perhaps Ada 95 is more difficult? I certainly found Ada 83 to be far more natural than C ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org