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: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,d730ea9d54f7e063 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dlmiller@inetdirect.net (Doug & Rose Miller) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/11 Message-ID: <4ulpn9$ka6@news.inetdirect.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173582198 distribution: world references: <31f3c52e.238719470 <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <4ukl9r$gcj@news.inetdirect.net> <4ul434$jf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> organization: NetDirect newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1996-08-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Craig Franck wrote: +dlmiller@inetdirect.net (Doug & Rose Miller) wrote: +>Craig Franck wrote: +>+Richard Riehle 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. Perhaps. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the language in which the OS was written. How could it? The OS isn't executing source code. It's executing object code, and you can't tell what the source language was, by looking at the object code. + When you are using the +same tools the vendor used to write the OS your going to be using a good +implementation. I'm completely baffled as to why you think there's any connection. + 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. + Not only different, but a little broader, too, I'd suspect. Sounds to me like your experiences have been limited to a single platform. + +>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. + You just contradicted yourself, you know. Earlier you said "When you are using the same tools the vendor used to write the OS your going to be using a good implementation." Now you say that a high-level language is the best application environment when the OS is written in assembly. And whether you are better off with a HLL or assembly depends entirely on the problem you are solving, and has absolutely nothing to do with the language in which the OS was written.