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: Doug Rogers Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't. Date: 1996/03/25 Message-ID: <4j77e4$ldn@ra.nrl.navy.mil>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144215503 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iv0g6$6cs@news4.digex.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Naval Research Laboratory x-url: news:Doqp85.qn@world.std.com mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; Linux 1.3.69 i486) Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) wrote: >In article , Robert Dewar wrote: >>This seems truly bizarre. Doug is complaining about not being able to >>pack 9-bit arrays, a feature that >>(a) is certainly absence from C and C++ which don't support packed >> arrays at all >>(b) most people think is not of sufficient use in Ada to be mandated >> though some compilers do support it (e.g. the old Alsys >> technology). >I agree. You both are correct, of course. C++ totally lacks the means to pack arrays. Bob D hits the nail on the head when he says that it's mostly a matter of expectations. I still have to code up a class in C++ to handle this stuff. I've done that. Once. That's all I need. You guys might think "you can do the same thing in Ada," and I will end up doing so, but with the 'size and packing cop-outs available to compiler developers (see other messages in this thread), there's very little that one can be sure of in moving Ada code around. (How'd ya like that run-on sentence!!! :-) My code in C++ has survived multiple ports, but there's no way that it can provide the type-checking that Ada can (the C++ code is really a template, so it does do a little bit of checking). So, I expect Ada to do better. As I stated in a previous message, I can either put together a mishmash of bit-extraction operations and true types, or I can go with a less-checked but homogeneous set of bit extractions. I'm going with the latter. Now that I have to ditch Ada's type- checking, tell me why I should stick with Ada at all? It seems that people think that because C/C++ lack many "software engineering" constructs (to which I might even agree), that it's difficult to write maintainable code with them. Hogwash. As the Obscure C contest has proven, there is no end to the obfuscation one can create in C, but some of the best software I've ever seen (and written) was done in C/C++. And we've all seen our share of shitty Ada. I'll agree to disagree on all this. >Ada *claims* to support representation clauses, which map nice >high-level data stuctures onto low-level hardware. But it doesn't >.... you feel cheated... Well, I must admit that I feel something different than cheated. I spend time analyzing the problem domain. I get all the way to testing my code (ok, it's only prototype code), and *wham* I've got to go back to the drawing board. It just isn't worth it. And, no, that doesn't happen with C/C++. Again, it's a matter of expectations. Gotta go. My kids are having too much fun outside and the weather's about to go rainy and cool again. Sometimes it's worth the time! :-) Doug =------cxiuj-opinioj-estas-sole-miaj.-----any-opinions-are-mine-alone.------= = Doug Rogers vocxe/voice = 1.703.893.2007 fakse/fax = 1.703.893.5890 = = Innovative Concepts Inc; 8200 Greensboro Drive Suite 801; McLean VA 22102 = = PGP ID: pub 1024/016DE91D 1994/11/14 Doug Rogers = =senemankasalvimultodatempolernulaanglan-ifyouvegotalittletimelearnesperanto=