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

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

John Howard <jhoward@sky.net> wrote:

>On 12 Aug 1996, Craig Franck wrote:
>> Well I'm not an Ada expert, but I have "Ada as a Second Language"
>> by Norman Cohen and "Ada Programmer Handbook" by Dean Gonzalez.
>> On the cover a little R with a circle around it appears by the 
>> word Ada. In the book by Norman Cohen it states (page 8) that 
>> the name "Ada" is a trade mark of the DOD and it's usage is 
>> "strictly enforced". I take that to mean that if it doesn't 
>> conform it *can not* be called an Ada compiler. It states you
>> can work towards conformity and use the name, but thats an exeption.
>
>The second edition of "Ada as a Second Language" was released this year
>and incorporates Ada 95.  The first edition you are using is from 1986.
>On page 8 from the second edition, "a compiler can be called an Ada
>compiler if it implements the core language".  The core language consists
>of sections 1 through 13; annexes A, B and J of the Ada 95 Reference 
>Manual v6.0.  The registered trademark symbol is no longer applied to the
>word Ada.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have since become aware that the 1986
edition is out of date and I shall find a more recent text to quote 
from.

>> I think part of the resistance to Ada is C belongs to the world.
>> Ada belongs to the government! :-)
>Which dialect of C belongs to the world?  I use UNIX services via an
>online service provider but I don't program for it.  I mainly use a PC and 
>OS/2 Warp (for DOS/Windows support too).  So which C dialect would you 
>claim belongs to an OS/2 user or a Windows95 user?

My statement was a hyperbole; an extravagant exaggeration. I can
not defend it in a literal sense. The fact the US government,
particularly as it relates to the Military Industrial Complex
had anything to do with the creation of Ada, makes me highly 
suspicous. But to say something is bad just because of where
it came from would be to commit the genetic fallacy of reasoning,
so I won't comment on that any futher.

>Ada 95 clearly does not belong exclusively to our government.  GNU based 
>Ada 95 compilers are available for free from cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat.  You 
>even receive the source code to GNAT.  Plus the Ada 95 Reference Manual 
>and the Ada 95 Rationale book are free too.
>
>> If this has changed, please enlighten me!
>
>Alot has changed in ten years.  The C camp is being splintered off into 
>Java and C++ camps now to get the benefits of classwide programming.  I 
>witnessed the division of support over the years for the Pascal dialects. 
>Borland Pascal users saw their pool of support get larger longer while
>other Pascal pools dried up.  The chaos caused by lack of support for a
>decent standardized language caused confusion and expense to the detriment
>of all Pascal users.  

Wow! Sounds like a "Software Crisis"! ;-)

In stark contrast, Ada 95 is the first 
>internationally standardized object-oriented language.  Ada 95 is designed 
>to not become obsolete.  I can invest into support for Ada 95 without
>fearing it might be a wasted investment toward a dead-end.  I trust Ada 
>95 is capable enough to do any job I want to work on.
>
>The fact that a GNU C or GNU C++ can do a job generally means that a GNU 
>Ada 95 can do the same job since they use the same GNU back-end compiler. 
>Consequently, support for Ada 95 is not going to disappear provided GNAT 
>is available for important operating systems and hardware platforms.

I don't want support for Ada to disappear! I like Ada. I call it Pascal
on steriods. I don't want a Tower of Babel either. I think if a handfull
of languages dominate, that's enough standardization for me.
 

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