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: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada Date: 1996/02/19 Message-ID: <4g95c4$bhp@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140035124 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4etcmm$lpd@nova.dimensional.com> <3114d8fb.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <4f5h5t$f13@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4g1bgf$l5@mailhub.scitec.com.au> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1996-02-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: ramsesy@rd.scitec.com.au (Ramses Youhana) writes: >Another thing not mentioned is that Ada is far more complicated to learn >fully than is C/C++. The complexity of the language can add to an increase >in the probabilty of bugs being introduced and also adds to an increase in >project maintanace costs. It is true that Ada (95) is harder to learn fully than C. It is FALSE that Ada (95) is harder to learn fully than C++. To start with, C++ is still a moving target. Anything I say about it today may be false tomorrow (and in fact, since I don't have the current committee draft, but only the April 95 version, so what I say today may be false today). More importantly, the C++ draft is written in much sloppier language. I don't believe _anyone_ fully understands C++. (If they do, why can't I find two compilers that agree about which programs are legal?) (Actually, I am being generous about C. Most C textbooks contain serious factual errors, so if it is so easy to learn the language fully, why don't the authors get their books right?) Furthermore, it is not clear that anyone _needs_ to understand a programming language fully. I understand Ada fixed point arithmetic well enough to know when it's appropriate and what it looks like, and what to study if I ever find it to be appropriate. The real flaw in the claim, though, is that while the complexity of a language MIGHT lead to an increase in bugs being introduced, what really counts is the probability of UNDETECTED bugs, and it should be obvious that _in principle_ one language might be more complex than another and yet permit far superior compile-time bug detection. Whether the greater complexity of C++ does in fact lead to such an advantage is of course an empirical question. -- Election time; but how to get Labour _out_ without letting Liberal _in_? Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.