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: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Alan E & Carmel J Brain Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!! Date: 1997/10/31 Message-ID: <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 285975019 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: @home Reply-To: aebrain@dynamite.com.au Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-10-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Copeland wrote: > > This has almost nothing to do with the "ease of learning" either > language (and I feel C/C++ is much harder to do so than Pascal), but by > some other factors: > 1. The portability issue. C/C++ are basically portable across > platforms, and this is an extremely important issue to corporate > thinking. While I agree with most of your post, I must take issue here. C and C++ are perceived as being portable. Inasmuch as there are almost no major computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's a big, big selling point. However.... C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare. Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported code cross-platform. In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems I've had with any C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've had with Ada crossplatform put together! If you have an Ada compiler by brand A on target X, the same code has a high probability of being correct out-of-the-box by brand B on target X, and will often work with brand C on target Y. Example: 15,000 LOCs originally written on an IBM-386 using Thomson (now Aonix) Ada-83, ported to a microVax running an Irvine compiler in Australia for checking, then transmitted to Germany to run on a microVax using DecAda, and finally using the Winterstein Compiler onto a KAV-30 embedded system. 3 lines of code had to be changed (in Australia). Due to bugs. Yes, this is an actual example, of a Knowledge-based real-time subsytem's components. Now C++ on the other hand, written using CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac, ported to CodeWarrior 10 on an IBM... or even MVC++ 4 vs MVC++ 5... or worse still CodeWarrior 9 on a Mac to CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac to MVC++ 5 on an IBM... In 15,000 LOCs of C++ how many would you reasonably expect to have to be changed? (yes, these were actual examples too) -- aebrain@dynamite.com.au <> <> How doth the little Crocodile | Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail? | Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale