Re: Ada and QNX

[Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com>]

mjsilva@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com>,
>   Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote:
> > Oh, yeah. I bought Ada book some years ago. So many capabilities.
> Couple
> > hundred pages worth of docs printed in small-font.
> 
> You bought -a- book!?  You don't state that you've used Ada, or even
> that you know it, but only that you bought -a- book.  And some years
> ago at that -- maybe it didn't even cover the current standard (Ada 95
> vs. Ada 83).
> 

Sure, I bought a book simply to have it collect some dust. That's very
reasonable assumption given that such fat books are usually rather
expensive.

> Since when does one need to know "the whole damn thing" to use any
> programming language or other complex tool?
> 

Since the time it became obvious that if you don't want the whole Ada
you might as well go with C/C++.

> > Ada is way too high and abstract to be good for system level
> programming
> 
> What low-level system-programming functionality is missing in Ada?  In
> fact Ada has more low-level functionality than C or C++.  It was, after
> all, originally designed for -embedded- applications.
> 

I did not say anything is missing. I said that it is 'too high' which
should mean there is just too much stuff to bear along with what you
really need in most cases.

Note that strictly speaking I never said Ada is wrong thing in general,
I just stated that it is not good for my personal taste. My original
intention was not to denounce Ada, but to say that pissing on C++ does
not do any good for Ada. I see, nobody seems to want to continue the
wedding analogy, but many are happy to let off some steam on me no
matter how many disclaimers I put. I guess it was mistake to give you
guys such an easy target :)

- Igor