Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...

[ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be (Ian Ward)]

In article 342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>On Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:29:56 +0100, Peter Amey <pna@erlang.praxis.co.uk> wrote:
>>"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations that 
>>would require his superior skill"
>>
>>I use Ada precisely because it avoids the need constantly to demonstrate
>>my superior skill :-)
>
>I do the same in C.  The problem is that Ada won't *let* you use your superior
>skill, i.e., nothing is gained by it.  For someone who knows what they're
>doing, it's just as easy to write good, clean, safe code in C (or assembly, or
>*any* language) as it is in Ada.
>

It is possible, but not as easy; Each language, assuming it actually
was designed, was designed for a certain reason, it therefore stands
to reason that some languages must be, on average, empirically easier
to use than others.

I'm not the only person to think so, either. If you don't believe
me, read Byte July 1996, page 163. (Not that I totally agree with
what Mr. Pournelle says, but his views are derived from the fact
that he finds Visual Basic easier to produce simple apps on his
machine, than he does with some other language.) 

For further information, in fact the only study I know of, NOT
based on heresay, check out
http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/reports/cada/cada_art.html

I don't deny the principle of what you are saying, that 
geniuses get less help from helpful languages, than ordinary
people, but they still get some help, and 50% of programmers
are below average.


>-- 
>#include <standard_disclaimer.h>                 http://emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov/
> _
>Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454           96.37% of all statistics are made up
>Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

---
Ian Ward's opinions only : ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be
50% of programmers REALLY are below average.