Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel

["Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net>]

"chris.danx" wrote:
> 
> "Wes Groleau" <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote in message
> 
> > 2. The particular post you complained about was not an
> >    "Ada is better" post.  It was expressing disbelief
> >    that someone is touting improvements on C as something
> >    special when they have been proven in Ada and other
> >    languages for over 20 years.
> 
> It was the tone of the post (which I may have taken the wrong way) that
> seemed to convey the "mine's a superior language" belief.  I appologise if
> that's not Marc's intention.  I make no appologies though, for highlighting
> my distaste at the recent "trend".

Wes' perception of my post is what I intended, just plain disbelief at
how type-checking is being considered a new concept.  As well as Marin's
observation that features that Ada has been criticized about by anti-Ada
zealots are now working their way into C-flavored languages and they're
now considered A Good Thing...

I certainly did not mean to convey an "Ada is superior, all other
languages suck" tone.  If I felt that, I wouldn't be able to write code
in C, C++, Java, Ada 83, Ada 95, Pascal, Modula 2, Fortran, Tcl, Basic,
and with a little refresher, COBOL and SNOBOL :-)

I don't think it's going too far out on limb to say that if programmers
were trained to an equal level of proficiency with Ada that they had
with C, that programming in Ada versus C would already result in a
noticeable drop in the defect rate, with the added benefit of proven,
optimizing compilers available right now.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com