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: 103376,5f8432149982f35e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fca1b,5f8432149982f35e
X-Google-Attributes: gidfca1b,public
From: Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com>
Subject: Re: Ada and QNX
Date: 2000/10/16
Message-ID: <39EB42B1.A14BDCB6@motorola.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 682158309
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8r1i82$ri3$1@kujawiak.man.lodz.pl>
 <V_hB5.59429$dZ2.20181071@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
 <8r5pe5$h70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8FCDFD7EEnopenopena@63.209.170.206>
 <39EA6305.CD5CFE1F@ix.netcom.com> <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com>
 <8sf9p0$kpg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@mot.com
X-Trace: schbbs.mot.com 971719205 11286 145.1.195.34 (16 Oct 2000 18:00:05
 GMT)
Organization: Motorola iDEN
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2000 18:00:05 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.qnx
Date: 2000-10-16T18:00:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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