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,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Pitre)
Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
Date: 1996/03/15
Message-ID: <4ic8dk$amh@ra.nrl.navy.mil>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 142873790
references: <DoBFpD.Htx@world.std.com>
organization: Naval Research Laboratory
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <DoBFpD.Htx@world.std.com> bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)  
writes:
> In article <4ia666$jtm@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> >> You could argue that Ada is better because it complains when there's an
> >> inconsistency.  Fine, but for a large program, it's a nightmare to
> >> figure out what to *do* about that inconsistency, unless you have an
> >> automatic tool (not 'make').  
> >
> >You are talking about a tool that does what, exactly?
> 
> I am talking about a tool that determines what needs to be recompiled,
> and does it.  Some people have mentioned that one way to do that is for
> the tool to generate a make file.  That works OK, but it's not the only
> way to do it (and I don't really think it's the best way to do it).
> 
> Most Ada compilers, and many C compilers, come with such a tool.
> 
> >> So, in practice, you need a separate tool
> >> anyway, and if you use it religiously, you won't get burned by
> >> inconsistencies in *either* language.
> 
> >Are you saying that, in your experience, the extra checking that Ada does is  
> >not that significant relative to what a C/C++ compiler will do for you?
> >Please elaborate.
> 
> No, I wasn't saying that *in general*.  Ada compilers do *lots* of
> useful checking that C compilers don't do (and even lint doesn't do).
> 
> I was only talking about this specific case: Ada compilers check the
> consistency of compilation units, so if I compile A and B, and they both
> make use of X, then you can be sure that A and B are both using the same
> version of X.  I'll admit this is useful, but if you use the tool I
> mentioned above (and you should), then it's not *that* useful, because
> the tool ensures exactly that sort of consistency, anyway. 

Do you have personal experience of this rough equivalence or is this something  
whose practical reality should be self evident?

> I don't want
> my Ada compiler to complain about this kind of inconsistency -- I want
> it (or a separate tool) to FIX it for me, by recompiling what needs to
> be recompiled.  (And I want it to be fast!)
> 
> - Bob

richard