* Misconception about Ada? @ 2001-02-11 23:49 Cesar Rabak 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-11 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Eric Raymon is writting a book on-line and has a particular paragraph which seems to me execessively perfunctory about Ada. Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/chapter3.html The pertaining part is "Why Not C?" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:49 Misconception about Ada? Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 0:34 ` David Starner ` (2 more replies) 2001-02-12 14:08 ` Tarjei T. Jensen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert Deininger @ 2001-02-11 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 6:49 PM, Cesar Rabak <csrabak@uol.com.br> wrote: >Eric Raymon is writting a book on-line and has a particular paragraph >which seems to me execessively perfunctory about Ada. > >Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? > >http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/chapter3.html > >The pertaining part is "Why Not C?" I take it this is the part you don't like: "The arguments against C and C++ apply with equal force to other conventional compiled languages such as Pascal, Ada, Algol, PL/I, Fortran, and compiled Basic dialects. Despite occasional heroic efforts such as the Eiffel/Sather family, the differences between conventional languages remain superficial when set against their basic design decision to leave memory management to the programmer. None is clearly superior to C/C++, and none are in significant use in the Unix or Windows worlds. Accordingly we will not survey them here." Knowing nothing more about this author than I learned by skimming the chapter, I suspect it would be a waste of time to discuss Ada with him. I guess he doesn't have a clue about Ada, but he thinks he knows quite a bit. Throwing all these languages in the same basket is silly. I guess Ada is not suitable for the sort of programming he cares about: "In 1996 a widely-reported and plausible estimate of community sizes held that for every Python hacker there were five Tcl hackers and twelve Perl hackers. " Speak up, Ada hackers! --------------------------- Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger @ 2001-02-12 0:34 ` David Starner 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 2:39 ` Cesar Rabak 2 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2001-02-12 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11 Feb 2001 18:30:30 -0500, Robert Deininger <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote: >I take it this is the part you don't like: > >"The arguments against C and C++ apply with equal force to other >conventional compiled languages such as Pascal, Ada, Algol, PL/I, Fortran, >and compiled Basic dialects. Despite occasional heroic efforts such as the >Eiffel/Sather family, the differences between conventional languages remain >superficial when set against their basic design decision to leave memory >management to the programmer. . . My problem here is (a) he includes buffer overruns in memory management, which is not a problem for at least Pascal and Ada, and (b) Eiffel and Sather are both garbage collected languages, which, with their other features, means they don't leave memory management to the programmer any more than Python or Perl do. >Knowing nothing more about this author than I learned by skimming the >chapter, I suspect it would be a waste of time to discuss Ada with him. He's an author and primary editor of the Jargon file, which trashes Ada pretty badly. I was actually surprised to find it treated this well, which is why I didn't bother emailing him or posting something to cla about this. >I guess Ada is not suitable for the sort of programming he cares about: > >"In 1996 a widely-reported and plausible estimate of community sizes held >that for every Python hacker there were five Tcl hackers and twelve Perl >hackers. " Sigh. Of all the people, I would expect someone who's done as much programming in as many different languages as ESR to recognize that different languages have different uses. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 0:34 ` David Starner @ 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak ` (2 more replies) 2001-02-12 2:39 ` Cesar Rabak 2 siblings, 3 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11 Feb 2001 18:30:30 -0500, Robert Deininger wrote: >Knowing nothing more about this author than I learned by skimming the >chapter, I suspect it would be a waste of time to discuss Ada with him. I >guess he doesn't have a clue about Ada, but he thinks he knows quite a bit. > Throwing all these languages in the same basket is silly. It is the Open Source evangelist Eric Steven Raymond. But he does not seem have the knowlegde he claims when it comes to computer languages. If you look at the Jargon File you will find that he has less opinions about Ada, but they seem all to be based on either Ada 83 or hear-say. :-( >I guess Ada is not suitable for the sort of programming he cares about: Yes it is, but I believe he has not tried it. An Ada version of fetchmail would not be a bad idea. >"In 1996 a widely-reported and plausible estimate of community sizes held >that for every Python hacker there were five Tcl hackers and twelve Perl >hackers. " Which does not say much. I mean there is no logic in the notion that the majority is right. They seldom are... >Speak up, Ada hackers! Which is another point. The hacker definition is hopeless in the sense that all media use it for cracker, so people who do not know more than what the media writes thinks linux and the like are done buy a bunch of criminals :-( Anyway one can argue, from the definition of a hacker, that a cracker is a hacker that is good at breaking into systems. -- Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ -- �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.� ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 13:06 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 16:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 16:21 ` Robert Deininger 2 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 2:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: [snipped] > >I guess Ada is not suitable for the sort of programming he cares about: > > Yes it is, but I believe he has not tried it. An Ada version of > fetchmail would not be a bad idea. A similar idea as the bind discussed in another thread in this NG! > > >"In 1996 a widely-reported and plausible estimate of community sizes held > >that for every Python hacker there were five Tcl hackers and twelve Perl > >hackers. " > > Which does not say much. I mean there is no logic in the notion that the > majority is right. They seldom are... > > >Speak up, Ada hackers! > > Which is another point. The hacker definition is hopeless in the sense > that all media use it for cracker, so people who do not know more than > what the media writes thinks linux and the like are done buy a bunch of > criminals :-( Anyway one can argue, from the definition of a hacker, > that a cracker is a hacker that is good at breaking into systems. So would you agree, if we changed to: "Speak up, Ada practioners!"? Cesar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 13:06 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 19:35 ` Cesar Rabak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:41:49 -0300, Cesar Rabak wrote: >So would you agree, if we changed to: "Speak up, Ada practioners!"? He he, what is wrong with programmers :-) -- Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ -- �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.� ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 13:06 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 19:35 ` Cesar Rabak 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:41:49 -0300, Cesar Rabak wrote: > > >So would you agree, if we changed to: "Speak up, Ada practioners!"? > > He he, what is wrong with programmers :-) Without any prejudice, please! But I think more people than just who _program_ should be educated about the fine points of Ada. . . How about advisors in Faculties, CTOs in organizations, etc. I think "practioners" would have this semantic extension... just my .019999... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 16:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-12 18:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-13 16:21 ` Robert Deininger 2 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-12 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn98eeli.2cd.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, randhol+abuse@pvv.org (Preben Randhol) wrote: > On 11 Feb 2001 18:30:30 -0500, Robert Deininger wrote: > >Speak up, Ada hackers! > > Which is another point. The hacker definition is hopeless in the sense > that all media use it for cracker, so people who do not know more than > what the media writes thinks linux and the like are done buy a bunch > of criminals :-( Anyway one can argue, from the definition of a > hacker, that a cracker is a hacker that is good at breaking into > systems. I learned that term as more like someone who subscribes to the "just make it work" philosophy. As such, it is not a kind term, or a term that would describe most Ada enthusiasts. I think this is the sense from the ninth definition in FOLDOC: ---- 9. (University of Maryland, rare) A programmer who does not understand proper programming techniques and principles and doesn't have a Computer Science degree. Someone who just bangs on the keyboard until something happens. For example, "This program is nothing but spaghetti code. It must have been written by a hacker". --- I did not attend Maryland, but I think I did pick it up at school (Tulane). Is this common usage at other universities? I also use the term "hack" in a similar perjorative sense. The fact that a lot of C programmers use it in a non-perjorative sense always seemed to me to be proof that C is emphasising the wrong things. :-) -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 16:15 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-12 18:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 20:03 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:15:21 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > >I learned that term as more like someone who subscribes to the "just >make it work" philosophy. As such, it is not a kind term, or a term that >would describe most Ada enthusiasts. > Yes very good description :-) [...] > >I did not attend Maryland, but I think I did pick it up at school >(Tulane). Is this common usage at other universities? > >I also use the term "hack" in a similar perjorative sense. The fact that >a lot of C programmers use it in a non-perjorative sense always seemed >to me to be proof that C is emphasising the wrong things. :-) I could not agree with you more :-) -- Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ -- �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.� ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 18:43 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 20:03 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 15:31 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-12 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Preben Randhol wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:15:21 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: > >I learned that term as more like someone who subscribes to the "just > >make it work" philosophy. As such, it is not a kind term, or a term that > >would describe most Ada enthusiasts. > > > > Yes very good description :-) When I was an an undergrad it meant someone who got explored tunnels and buildings, often bypassing security. A computer hacker was someone who explored computers, and built things, it was pretty much positive. Here's a .sig I've seen The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen. and that conveys the spirit nicely I think. > >I did not attend Maryland, but I think I did pick it up at school > >(Tulane). Is this common usage at other universities? > > > >I also use the term "hack" in a similar perjorative sense. The fact that > >a lot of C programmers use it in a non-perjorative sense always seemed > >to me to be proof that C is emphasising the wrong things. :-) > > I could not agree with you more :-) I think this attitude being displayed is actually harmful to Ada. I'd rather that there was an abundance of Ada code, even if some of it was drek. I think Ada is an even better "hacking" (and I use this in the sense you seem to be using it, coding with little design) language than C, since Ada's safety measures allow you to hack away with less debugging effort. BTW, it's spelled "pejorative", and pronounced without that R too ;-). -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 20:03 ` Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-13 15:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 16:56 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102121155250.19870-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, Brian Rogoff says... >On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:15:21 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote: >> >I learned that term as more like someone who subscribes to the "just >> >make it work" philosophy. As such, it is not a kind term, or a term that >> >would describe most Ada enthusiasts. >> > .. >When I was an an undergrad it meant someone who got explored tunnels and >buildings, often bypassing security. A computer hacker was someone who >explored computers, and built things, it was pretty much positive. Here's Interesting difference. I assume you picked this up from your Computer Science department? It also occurs to me that I had a freshman engineering chemistry professor from some scandanavian country (old as dirt, and ornery as a mule) who used to throw the term "hackers" at the class as an epithet all the time. I never did quite figure out exactly what he was trying to imply, but perhaps that also predisposed me against the term. >... I think Ada is an even better "hacking" (and I use this in the sense >you seem to be using it, coding with little design) language than C, since >Ada's safety measures allow you to hack away with less debugging effort. *Nothing* saves the "hacker" (my sense), short of a transfer. :-) However, I'd think Ada would be particularly annoying for them, as the typing system requires a certain amount of thinking ahead in order to prevent you from painting yourself into a corner. In fact, we have in the past heard from a "hacker" in this very newsgroup who complained that this damn language won't let them just write stuff without sitting down and thinking about what they are doing first. :-) --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-13 15:31 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 16:56 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 18:05 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-13 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Ted Dennison wrote: > In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102121155250.19870-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, > Brian Rogoff says... > >When I was an an undergrad it meant someone who got explored tunnels and > >buildings, often bypassing security. A computer hacker was someone who > >explored computers, and built things, it was pretty much positive. Here's > > Interesting difference. I assume you picked this up from your Computer Science > department? I was a Math guy. Hacking was part of the school's history and culture. Of course, there was a fictional Alyssa P. Hacker in the undergrad CS textbook and she was smarter than Ben Bitdiddle (who was a low level kind of guy) so I guess it's better to be a (Lisp) hacker than a bit diddler. > >... I think Ada is an even better "hacking" (and I use this in the sense > >you seem to be using it, coding with little design) language than C, since > >Ada's safety measures allow you to hack away with less debugging effort. > > *Nothing* saves the "hacker" (my sense), short of a transfer. :-) However, I'd > think Ada would be particularly annoying for them, as the typing system requires > a certain amount of thinking ahead in order to prevent you from painting > yourself into a corner. Ever play speed chess? It's rather different from a regular chess game which is rather different than postal chess. I would argue that "typeful" programming is even more valuable in rapid development. Once you've got the basics of Ada down, it's pretty fast to write since you don't debug as much as in C. > In fact, we have in the past heard from a "hacker" in Prototyping, and rapid development doesn't mean "absolutely no" design. Prototyping, rapid development, etc. in Ada is still typeful. When you make sweeping changes in Ada code the type checking saves you a lot of work. I think there are usually better languages for this, but if we compare with C and C++ my experience is that programmer "velocity" in Ada can be greater. -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-13 16:56 ` Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-13 18:05 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 18:14 ` Mark Carroll 2001-02-13 20:27 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102130844300.1575-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, Brian Rogoff says... > >On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Ted Dennison wrote: >> Interesting difference. I assume you picked this up from your Computer >> Science department? > >I was a Math guy. Hacking was part of the school's history and culture. Of Ahh. So we are still back to the possiblity that the terminology difference stems from a CS vs. non-CS background. I was hoping to hear from CS people who learned it as a postitive term, or perhaps non-CS people who didn't. >Ever play speed chess? It's rather different from a regular chess game Actually, the way I play chess is an excellent example. You can consider me sort of a "chess hacker", in my sense of the word "hacker". I play each move as its own game, with no overriding plan (and no idea how to make one). As a result, I'm incapable of beating anyone who's any good. In particular: o I walk right into traps. o My position after the first few moves is always a complete mess. o I take forever to perform a move. o For someone who knows what they are doing, I'm no fun to play with. >programming is even more valuable in rapid development. Once you've got >the basics of Ada down, it's pretty fast to write since you don't debug as >much as in C. I'd agree with that. However, even for "rapid development", you have to sit down first and figure out what you are trying to do and roughly how you want to try to get there. If you just sit down at a GUI-builder and start throwing controls up on the screen, you'll take 3 times a long to get anywhere, and it probably won't be a pleasant place when you get there. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-13 18:05 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 18:14 ` Mark Carroll 2001-02-13 20:27 ` Brian Rogoff 1 sibling, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Mark Carroll @ 2001-02-13 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <gHei6.86$a4.713@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: (snip) >Ahh. So we are still back to the possiblity that the terminology >difference >stems from a CS vs. non-CS background. I was hoping to hear from CS >people who >learned it as a postitive term, or perhaps non-CS people who >didn't. (snip) I'm a CS person who learned 'hacker' as a positive term, FWIW. -- Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-13 18:05 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 18:14 ` Mark Carroll @ 2001-02-13 20:27 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 22:04 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-13 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Ted Dennison wrote: > In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102130844300.1575-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, > Brian > Rogoff says... > > > >On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Ted Dennison wrote: > >> Interesting > difference. I assume you picked this up from your Computer > >> Science > department? > > > >I was a Math guy. Hacking was part of the school's history and > culture. Of > > Ahh. So we are still back to the possiblity that the terminology > difference > stems from a CS vs. non-CS background. Not really. "Computer hacker" was a positive term to me as an undergrad. It was (not that much) later that the term became misused. Hacking also involved various practical jokes, but they had to have a certain elegance to be considered hacks; putting sugar in someone's gas tanks isn't a hack, but if you could get that someone's car undamaged onto the roof of a building that might qualify. > >Ever play speed chess? It's rather different from a regular chess > game > > Actually, the way I play chess is an excellent example. You can consider > me sort > of a "chess hacker", in my sense of the word "hacker". Even people who are good are "reduced" in their ability to do in depth strategic planing in, say, a 5 minute game. It's still lots of fun though. I play each move > as its > own game, with no overriding plan (and no idea how to make one). As a > result, Well, the problem you're describing is that you don't know how to play chess at all, except that maybe you know the rules. This isn't analogous at all to the rapid programming hacker, who may be an expert programmer working under time pressure with an incomplete spec. > I'm incapable of beating anyone who's any good. In particular: > o I > walk right into traps. > o My position after the first few moves is always a > complete mess. > o I take forever to perform a move. Why? If you don't know what you're doing you may as well move randomly :-) I'd suggest picking up a book on the basic principles of chess, or just give up playing. I can't imagine it would be any fun playing if I didn't have a very basic grasp of the "physics" of chess. My Go knowledge is unfortunately weak, and I don't know that I'll ever have the chance to remedy that :-(. > >programming is even more > valuable in rapid development. Once you've got > >the basics of Ada down, it's > pretty fast to write since you don't debug as > >much as in C. > > I'd agree with > that. However, even for "rapid development", you have to sit down > first and > figure out what you are trying to do and roughly how you want to try > to get > there. If you just sit down at a GUI-builder and start throwing controls > up on > the screen, you'll take 3 times a long to get anywhere, and it probably > won't be > a pleasant place when you get there. People with lots of GUI experience are able to come up with decent GUIs for smallish apps without a lot of up front work. In many cases that's sufficient. My main point is that Ada doesn't lose to C or C++ for hacking on account of its strong typing, though the lack of libraries doesn't help. -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-13 20:27 ` Brian Rogoff @ 2001-02-13 22:04 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102131213590.19846-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>, Brian Rogoff says... > >On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Ted Dennison wrote: > >> >Ever play speed chess? It's rather different from a regular chess >> game >> >> Actually, the way I play chess is an excellent example. You can consider >> me sort of a "chess hacker", in my sense of the word "hacker". .. >> I play each move as its >> own game, with no overriding plan (and no idea how to make one). As a >Well, the problem you're describing is that you don't know how to play >chess at all, except that maybe you know the rules. This isn't analogous *bing*bing**bing*. We have a winner! Perhaps it isn't analogous to the term "hacker" as you are used to it, but it is *perfectly* analogous to the term as I am used to it. > > I'm incapable of beating anyone who's any good. In particular: >> o I >> walk right into traps. >> o My position after the first few moves is always a >> complete mess. >> o I take forever to perform a move. > >Why? If you don't know what you're doing you may as well move randomly :-) >I'd suggest picking up a book on the basic principles of chess, or just >give up playing. I can't imagine it would be any fun playing if I didn't >have a very basic grasp of the "physics" of chess. My Go knowledge is >unfortunately weak, and I don't know that I'll ever have the chance to >remedy that :-(. > >> >programming is even more >> valuable in rapid development. Once you've got >> >the basics of Ada down, it's >> pretty fast to write since you don't debug as >> >much as in C. >> >> I'd agree with >> that. However, even for "rapid development", you have to sit down >> first and >> figure out what you are trying to do and roughly how you want to try >> to get >> there. If you just sit down at a GUI-builder and start throwing controls >> up on >> the screen, you'll take 3 times a long to get anywhere, and it probably >> won't be >> a pleasant place when you get there. > >People with lots of GUI experience are able to come up with decent GUIs >for smallish apps without a lot of up front work. In many cases that's >sufficient. > >My main point is that Ada doesn't lose to C or C++ for hacking on account >of its strong typing, though the lack of libraries doesn't help. > >-- Brian > > --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 16:15 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-13 16:21 ` Robert Deininger 2 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert Deininger @ 2001-02-13 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 8:20 PM, Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote: >On 11 Feb 2001 18:30:30 -0500, Robert Deininger wrote: > >>Speak up, Ada hackers! > >Which is another point. The hacker definition is hopeless in the sense >that all media use it for cracker, so people who do not know more than >what the media writes thinks linux and the like are done buy a bunch of >criminals :-( Anyway one can argue, from the definition of a hacker, >that a cracker is a hacker that is good at breaking into systems. I wasn't thinking so much in terms of the media's use of "hacker". To me, on some ill-specified scale of programming philosophy, "software engineer" is near one end of the scale, and "hacker" is near the other. If someone says Ada isn't much of a hacker language, I might tend to agree. If this guy writes a book by, of, and for hackers, I won't want a copy. --------------------------- Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 0:34 ` David Starner 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol @ 2001-02-12 2:39 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 16:02 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Deininger wrote: > [snipped] > > I take it this is the part you don't like: > > "The arguments against C and C++ apply with equal force to other > conventional compiled languages such as Pascal, Ada, Algol, PL/I, Fortran, > and compiled Basic dialects. Despite occasional heroic efforts such as the > Eiffel/Sather family, the differences between conventional languages remain > superficial when set against their basic design decision to leave memory > management to the programmer. None is clearly superior to C/C++, and none > are in significant use in the Unix or Windows worlds. Accordingly we will > not survey them here." Yes. This is the main. Also, the whole chapter seems to point that in the author's opinion languages now are classifie{d,able} by having or not "memmory management" (garbage collection). . . > > Knowing nothing more about this author than I learned by skimming the > chapter, I suspect it would be a waste of time to discuss Ada with him. I > guess he doesn't have a clue about Ada, but he thinks he knows quite a bit. The reason I believe we should think of an accurate answer (if not to influence the rewritting of the pertaining material) is that E. S. Raymond is very influencial in the Open Software world. His "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is taken as the description of the open software spirit. > Throwing all these languages in the same basket is silly. I do agree! Perhaps we could try to summarize some arguments to enlighten the author. > > I guess Ada is not suitable for the sort of programming he cares about: > > "In 1996 a widely-reported and plausible estimate of community sizes held > that for every Python hacker there were five Tcl hackers and twelve Perl > hackers. " I have to disagree: the book he's writting is "The Art Of Unix Programming". We had (have?) a thread discussing the re-implementation of the bind program in Ada. . . > > Speak up, Ada hackers! Seconded, Cesar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 2:39 ` Cesar Rabak @ 2001-02-12 16:02 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-12 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3A874CC4.DF7B4CE8@uol.com.br>, Cesar Rabak <csrabak@uol.com.br> wrote: > Robert Deininger wrote: > The reason I believe we should think of an accurate answer (if not to > influence the rewritting of the pertaining material) is that E. S. > Raymond is very influencial in the Open Software world. His "The > Cathedral and the Bazaar" is taken as the description of the open > software spirit. I'd take that down a notch or two to "somewhat influential". The "very" might have been apt a year or two ago, but he hasn't really done much of use to the community in the last year, and memories are short on the internet. I think nowdays a lot more people are looking back to RMS and the FSF, and to all the big free software project leaders. Anyway, I can tell you from experience that he isn't likely to even listen to you. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:49 Misconception about Ada? Cesar Rabak 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger @ 2001-02-12 14:08 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2001-02-12 15:47 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-12 15:36 ` gdemont 2001-02-12 17:50 ` Lao Xiao Hai 3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2001-02-12 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Cesar Rabak wrote in message <3A872501.1186F238@uol.com.br>... >Eric Raymon is writting a book on-line and has a particular paragraph >which seems to me execessively perfunctory about Ada. > >Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? > >http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/chapter3.html > >The pertaining part is "Why Not C?" It is pretty useless. He probably believe that the verbosity of ada makes it unsuitable. It is a lost cause. Greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 14:08 ` Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2001-02-12 15:47 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-02-12 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <968qoj$f22@news.kvaerner.com>, "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote: > > Cesar Rabak wrote in message <3A872501.1186F238@uol.com.br>... > >Eric Raymon is writting a book on-line and has a particular paragraph > >which seems to me execessively perfunctory about Ada. > > > >Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? > It is pretty useless. He probably believe that the verbosity of ada > makes it unsuitable. It is a lost cause. I already mentioned his jargon file trashing of Ada to him via email. He pretty much ignored me. Given that I'd sent him other emails about such mundane stuff as his feelings on the writings of Fredrick Brooks and the outfit he was wearking at the Windows refund rally which did engender nice replies, the silence on this one was deafening. My advice to you if this annoys you: prove him wrong! Go write stuff useful to the community in Ada. Make sure to call it "Free Software" rather than "OpenSource" and release it under the GPL just to tick him off. :-) -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:49 Misconception about Ada? Cesar Rabak 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 14:08 ` Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2001-02-12 15:36 ` gdemont 2001-02-13 1:41 ` David Starner 2001-02-12 17:50 ` Lao Xiao Hai 3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: gdemont @ 2001-02-12 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) > Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? Forget it. He has only programmed one sort of thing with one language on one O.S. and has had a definitive opinion about all the rest since 30 years... G. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 15:36 ` gdemont @ 2001-02-13 1:41 ` David Starner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2001-02-13 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:36:33 GMT, gdemont@my-deja.com wrote: > >> Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? > >Forget it. He has only programmed one sort of thing >with one language on one O.S. and has had a definitive >opinion about all the rest since 30 years... I think it unfair to dismiss Eric S. Raymond like that. His name is on a lot of Elisp code, several interpreters at the Retrocomputing mueseum, fetchmail, and a Python-based compilation system for the Linux kernel, right off the top of my head. So he has done many types of programms in several language, with the worst thing that can be said is that they've all been on Un*x systems. There is no need to badmouth someone, even when you think they are being irrationally wrong. Whatever ESR has said about Ada doesn't automatically invalid anything else he may have said or done. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-11 23:49 Misconception about Ada? Cesar Rabak ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2001-02-12 15:36 ` gdemont @ 2001-02-12 17:50 ` Lao Xiao Hai 2001-02-12 18:49 ` Thierry Lelegard 3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Lao Xiao Hai @ 2001-02-12 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) We have to accept that there are some authors who produce serious works and others whose contributions are, at best, lightweight. It seems Mr. Raymon is not an authors to take seriously, particularly when he makes pronouncements about programming languages. On the other hand, there are some serious authors who study and write about programming languages. They do not all favor Ada, but they do tend to treat it fairly. Here are four books I have found to be fair in their treatment of Ada. Salus, Paul (Editor), Handbood of Programming Languages, Vol I, MacMillan Technical Publishing, 1998, ISBN 1-57870-009-4 Scott, Michael L., Programming Language Pragmatics, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA , 2000, ISBN 1-55860-442-1 Sebesta, Robert W., Concepts of Programming Languages, Addison-Wesley, 1999, ISBN 0-2-1-38596-1 Wilson, Leslie B and Clark, Robert G., Comparative Proramming Languages, Third Edition, Addison-Wesley, 2001, ISBN 0-20171012-9 In addition, I am discovering more authors willing to comment positively on Ada. Here is an example from a book on Embedded Systems Programming: "Ada is also an object-oriented language, though it is substantially different from C++. Ada was oringally design by the U.S. Department of Defense for the development of mission- critical military software. Despite being twice accepted as an international standard (Ada83 and Ada95), it has not gained much of a foothhold outside the defense and aerospace industries. And it is losing ground there in recent years. This is unfortunate because the Ada language has many features that would simplify embedded software development if used instead of C++." Barr, Michael, Programming Embedded Systems in C and C++, O'Reilly, 1999, ISBN 1-56592-354-5, page 10 Another example is the recent work on software testing by Bob Binder. Binder takes seriously the use of Ada in his selection of object-oriented languages. He even has some nice things to say about it in his book. Binder, Robert V, Testing Object-Oriented Systems, Addison-Wesley, 2000, ISBN 0-201-80938-9 It is unfortunate that publishers allow ignorant (at best uninformed) people such as Raymon to include such idiotic statements in their work. However, this phenomenon is not confined to programming languages. Each day I see, in editorial pages and other published works, even greater stupidity. Consider the motion picture industry. Hollywood thrives on distorting facts. It makes for good entertainment even though it persuades our children to believe things that are patently false, even absurd. Fortunately, there will continue to be some honest and scholarly works available to those with serious minds. Mr. Raymon's work is simply another collection of mispent effort that would be more worthy of the paper recycling bin than the bookshelf if it were a printed work. Now, where did I put that doggone bit bucket? Richard Riehle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Rabak wrote: > Eric Raymon is writting a book on-line and has a particular paragraph > which seems to me execessively perfunctory about Ada. > > Do you think it is worth to discuss this with him? > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/chapter3.html > > The pertaining part is "Why Not C?" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 17:50 ` Lao Xiao Hai @ 2001-02-12 18:49 ` Thierry Lelegard 2001-02-12 20:06 ` Laurent Guerby 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Thierry Lelegard @ 2001-02-12 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) > We have to accept that there are some authors who produce serious works > and others whose contributions are, at best, lightweight. It seems Mr. > Raymon is not an authors to take seriously, particularly when he makes > pronouncements about programming languages. Whether or not his pronouncements about programming languages are serious, Eric Raymond is a respected guru in the GNU / Open Source / Free Software community, like Richard Stallman and others. This community has a substantial influence on the modern computer culture. Negative opinions on Ada from this community may not kill the language but it will not help anyway. So, if Eric Raymond makes wrong statements about Ada, it is clearly worth trying to make him change his mind. But this initiative should come from another respected guru. ____________________________________________________________________________ Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75516 Paris Cedex 15, France Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30 Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08 Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75 ____________________________________________________________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 18:49 ` Thierry Lelegard @ 2001-02-12 20:06 ` Laurent Guerby 2001-02-12 23:35 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2001-02-13 2:24 ` sk 0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Laurent Guerby @ 2001-02-12 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) "Thierry Lelegard" <thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr> writes: > [...] So, if Eric Raymond makes wrong statements about > Ada, it is clearly worth trying to make him change his mind. But this > initiative should come from another respected guru. At least RMS and Miguel de Icaza have expressed very positive opinions of Ada (and I heard RMS say "abomination" about C++). I responded to ESR about the Jargon file, both in public forums and by email, and never heard back. <http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-21-006-04-NW-CY> I doubt that ESR will update his Jargon File, even if other guru tell him so. -- Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 20:06 ` Laurent Guerby @ 2001-02-12 23:35 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2001-02-13 2:24 ` sk 1 sibling, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Juergen Pfeifer @ 2001-02-12 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) > > I responded to ESR about the Jargon file, both in public forums > and by email, and never heard back. > > <http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-21-006-04-NW-CY> > > I doubt that ESR will update his Jargon File, even if other guru tell > him so. > You have to understand that the jargon file is intended to be some kind of fun and there is some extend of irony in it. Don't take it as a enceclopedia. Look what's written there about UNIX... I see that Eric tries to find some arguments that sound reasonable but are used simply to hide the fact that he only wants to talk about what he believes he has some expertise. Cheers J�rgen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Misconception about Ada? 2001-02-12 20:06 ` Laurent Guerby 2001-02-12 23:35 ` Juergen Pfeifer @ 2001-02-13 2:24 ` sk 1 sibling, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2001-02-13 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada >At least RMS and Miguel de Icaza have expressed very positive opinions >of Ada (and I heard RMS say "abomination" about C++). Could you provide references ? I am curious about comments by RMS (I am assuming you mean Stallman ?). Thanks. Simon Knipe - sknipe@ktc.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-02-13 22:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-02-11 23:49 Misconception about Ada? Cesar Rabak 2001-02-11 23:30 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 0:34 ` David Starner 2001-02-12 1:20 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 2:41 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 13:06 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 19:35 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 16:15 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-12 18:43 ` Preben Randhol 2001-02-12 20:03 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 15:31 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 16:56 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 18:05 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 18:14 ` Mark Carroll 2001-02-13 20:27 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-02-13 22:04 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-13 16:21 ` Robert Deininger 2001-02-12 2:39 ` Cesar Rabak 2001-02-12 16:02 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-12 14:08 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2001-02-12 15:47 ` Ted Dennison 2001-02-12 15:36 ` gdemont 2001-02-13 1:41 ` David Starner 2001-02-12 17:50 ` Lao Xiao Hai 2001-02-12 18:49 ` Thierry Lelegard 2001-02-12 20:06 ` Laurent Guerby 2001-02-12 23:35 ` Juergen Pfeifer 2001-02-13 2:24 ` sk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox