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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!193.252.117.184.MISMATCH!news.wanadoo.fr!news.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4880E2F3.4000303@obry.net> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:37:39 +0200 From: Pascal Obry Organization: Home - http://www.obry.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr-FR; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080421 Thunderbird/2.0.0.14 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c To: Paul Hsieh Subject: Re: computer language used to program Mars Lander References: <185ee7f9-9d4f-4f49-8dbe-6b623b8a8223@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <887fc0a7-0a5a-4d2e-a9ea-eb9e32d6a818@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <13a2f4f0-6ec1-4570-b6bf-1621cfb32db2@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <13a2f4f0-6ec1-4570-b6bf-1621cfb32db2@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2008 20:37:41 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.124.144.103 X-Trace: 1216406261 news.orange.fr 926 82.124.144.103:5927 X-Complaints-To: abuse@orange.fr Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1213 comp.lang.c:9945 Date: 2008-07-18T20:37:41+02:00 List-Id: Paul, > The small memory footprint and VxWorks environment probably makes C a > very attractive language for the NASA guys. If they used Ada, they > would be slower, have much larger memory requirements and have a very > hard time debugging problems remotely. That's just good-old-wrong-assumption made by lot of people. Ada is slower? I see nothing slow in Ada which is a language. Does a language has speed now? More seriously, some benchmarks have shown that some Ada compiler have been generating faster code than C compiler on a given application. And of course, some other benchmarks have shown the opposite. The memory requirement for Ada is wrong too. Using a zero-foot-print runtime you have zero memory requirement from the runtime. >> I suspect its a damn sight easier to prove C correct than C++. Still lot easier to prove Ada correct. And in any case on critical applications there is no Ada nor C but some subset that makes the languages safer (e.g. SPARK for Ada or MISRA-C for C). Please let's try to at least have constructive criticisms. Thanks. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595