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: 103376,e3feb606f668a7c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Gary Subject: Re: Why should hackers love Ada. (Re: Ada 95 based RTOS) Date: 2000/02/25 Message-ID: <38B6CCEA.69EAA9B1@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 589963482 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <88ilp7$bcm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38ADCA44.3B91BF6F@averstar.com> <88qli0$gvr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38B2A2A1.FDCDDFE7@honeywell.com> <88ugrd$7j7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <890ght$bih1@ftp.kvaerner.com> <38B3EA94.E3AB4929@maths.unine.ch> <38B41432.88D7389F@quadruscorp.com> <38B47521.1A80B6A1@lmtas.lmco.com> <38B55928.8A0EAB06@quadruscorp.com> <2000Feb24.122253.1@eisner> <38B5C9E6.143A32D6@flash.net> <38B68EED.D412DE91@quadruscorp.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: LMTAS Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Marin D. Condic" wrote: > Gary Scott wrote: > > This is a good feature, but many other languages have similar features (some very old like Jovial and PL/1). > > In other languages, my experience is that you simply define pack/unpack/scale routines and write the main > > executive and high-level functionality in a high-level fashion (possibly OO) and simply invoke these low-level > > "reformat" routines at the top and bottom of the frame (or as-required). Then again, I'm also used to being > > able to embed assembly to gain access to an interval timer or generate an interrupt right into the high-level > > language code. > > > There are lots of languages that give you good control of the underlying > representation of data and access to the hardware. Jovial was better > than most in this respect. However, I think there is a difference > between Ada and other languages in this respect. Ada tends towards > encouraging encapsulation of the low-level features so that they exist > in an isolated spot, whereas other languages treat access to low level > features as the "normal" mode of writing code. For example, you mention > embedded assembly. Ada will let you do that but you have to isolate it > in a subprogram - you can't just stick assembler instructions anywhere > you feel like. > This has quite a lot to do with programming style. I can encapsulate/isolate "low-level" functions in almost any language, but few languages restrict my choices. I agree that encapsulation/isolation is a good thing in general and I practice it for the most part, regardless of the language that I use (primarily for portability reasons). I prefer to have the freedom to make those types of decisions. For some applications, it may be entirely appropriate to generate an interrupt in a program main. > > MDC > -- > ============================================================= > Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 > 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 > http://www.quadruscorp.com/ > m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m > > ***PLEASE REMOVE THE "-NOSPAM" PART OF MY RETURN ADDRESS*** > > Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ > > "Because that's where they keep the money." > -- Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. > =============================================================