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

[Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net>]

dlmiller@inetdirect.net (Doug & Rose Miller) wrote:
>Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>+Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> wrote:
>+
>+>  C++ and C are probably fine for certain classes of problems, but they
>+>  are certainly archaic when compared to the progress being made in
>+>  the world of programming languages. And I do not refer only to Ada in
>+>  that last sentence.  Eiffel also comes to mind as a preferred
>+>  alternative to C++.
>+
>+
>+I agree with that, if you include PC programming as "a certain class of
>+problems". Most PC OS's are written in C/C++. It makes sense that
>+applications would then be coded in C/C++ as well.
>
>This is absolute nonsense. IBM mainframe operating systems are (or at
>least were, during the time I worked with them) written in assembly language;
>by this "reasoning,"  application programming on IBM mainframes should
>therefore also be done in assembly language.

While it might not be in your mind a compelling argument, I dont believe
it is nonsensical. Having programmed for Windows in C/C++, Pascal as well as
BASIC, I feel that C/C++ is the most natural. Pascal does not use NULL
terminalted strings. In BASIC everything is passed by reference, so 
you had to create a ByVal keyword. Also do to some limitations of Visaul
Basic, you can't even include all of windows.h in an application, so you
must hunt for the declarations you want and put them in. Perhaps it's the
implenentations not the languages themselves. When you are using the 
same tools the vendor used to write the OS your going to be using a good
implementation. The only Ada compiler I have is for DOS so I tend to view
it as good for learning the language, but not much else. Also so you
*must* admit that lingua prima of the PC world is C/C++, with Pascal and
BASIC taking up the rear. There must be a reason for this even if the
one I gave is not satisfactory. Perhaps as psycholigists say you can
be a victim of the run of your patients. In UNIX there is a lot more
support for C than Ada, so if I were start a project I would pick C
not Ada. There have been pure Lisp machines in which the whole OS was
written in Lisp. Also there is Oberon which is a pure enviroment-- not
just a language. Theoretically you could program in any language. The 
question is how can I get the most done? I have a bias towards these
types of implementation because they have worked well for me in
the past. Perhaps your experiences have been different.


>What possible connection is there between the language used to write an
>OS, and the language in which the applications which run under it are written?

It seems that those languages have the best implementations.  And yes
if the OS is written in assembler, you are better off with a HLL for that
is the best way to leverage your time.



-- 

Craig
-----
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
There are no electrons...