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

[John F. Bode <jfbode@mail.earthlink.net>]

In article <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> Kevin D. Quitt,
kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>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.
>

Ada certainly won't let you multiply 'A' by 1.34 and use that to index an
array, at least not without jumping through a lot of hoops, but this bit
about "not letting you use your superior skill" is hogwash.  A lot of
what is considered "superior skill" and "programmer freedom" in C is
really poor programming practice (I know, most professional C programmers
follow good practice, but you have to admit, that's in *spite* of C, not
because of it).  

The point is, you may be able to write good, clean, safe code in C.  You
may be able to write good, clean, safe code in FORTRAN, or COBOL, or
Pascal, or BASIC, or assembler.  But you can't really *know* that it's
good, clean, safe code until the testing phase, which is usually the
phase that gets cut short because of budget or schedule slips.  By being
so picky, Ada forces you to write good, clean, safe code AS YOU ARE
DEVELOPING IT.  

What is considered C's greatest asset is also its greatest failing for
developing large, robust systems: it assumes that you, the programmer,
know what you are doing at all times.  That's a bad assumption to make
for a lot of us (me included).  

John F. Bode
representing nobody but myself...