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: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Cline) Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada Date: 1996/03/20 Message-ID: <4ipbdb$6j7@tpd.dsccc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143405929 references: <4ikbar$g0k@tpd.dsccc.com> <4imqofINNn82@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> organization: DSC Communications Corporation Switch Products Division newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-03-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4imqofINNn82@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>, Kazimir Kylheku wrote: >In article <4ikbar$g0k@tpd.dsccc.com>, >Kevin Cline wrote: > > 2. No standard interface to any OS facility more advanced > > than line-at-a-time input/output. Also very difficult to > > work around, particularly if trying to produce a portable program. > >In 1983, C had no such interface either. The C language still has no interface >to a terminal that is ``more advanced'' than line-at-a-time I/O. This is smart, >IMHO. The comp.lang.c FAQ explains the rationale behind not including ways to >do character input in the ANSI standard. > >That's what POSIX.1 is for: there is a POSIX interface standard for C as well >as Ada. You are confusing de jure standards with de facto standards. Both are useful. In fact, it is often the case that de facto standards are more useful than de jure standards: consider TCP/IP vs. OSI, and PHIGS vs. OPEN-GL. The Ada community has been particularly slow at agreeing on de facto standards, while the C community has moved much more quickly. Every UNIX workstation is now X-windows based and the Ada community still hasn't agreed on an API to X-windows. Practically this meant that the same C program could be ported between compilers on the same OS, and could be ported between UNIX systems with a bit more effort. This was not the case for Ada programs; every compiler vendor provided a different API to the POSIX.1 facilities, and until GNAT, no single compiler was available for all popular UNIX systems. There is much to like about the Ada language, but it just isn't practical for development of medium-scale (50-100K SLOC) UNIX or PC applications with a significant system interface. The high startup cost and portablility problems overwhelm the advantages of more stringent compile-time and run-time checking. For 1M SLOC projects the advantages of Ada may outweigh the disadvantages. -- Kevin Cline