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: 10d15b,d730ea9d54f7e063 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: dweller@dfw.net (David Weller) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/18 Message-ID: <4v8jid$nfr@dfw.dfw.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174993531 references: <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> organization: DFWNet -- Public Internet Access newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1996-08-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4v5pis$4h1@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Craig Franck wrote: >probably does more harm than good! I feel that the level of support >for C/C++ on Windows and UNIX platforms is the best of any language. There are many reasons, most economic, why C/C++ has widespread support on WinTel and Unix platforms. Hopefully you're not attempting to take the position that this majority proves technical superiority (in reality, no language is "superior" without a specific set of criteria to measure from, and I've yet to see a comprehensive, unbiased list that does so :-) >Yes, you can program in Ada on a UNIX platform but I would point >out that the compiler is written in C I would point out that you should get your facts straight before making a public comment seen by thousands of readers that you're unable to substantiate. Of the three Ada compilers I've used for Unix, all three were written in Ada (with a few percentage points of C and assembler). I'm open for refutation. >find myself falling victim to time and time again. Like when I'm >writing : how many OSs or compilers are written in Ada? And not as >an acedemic exercise to prove it is possible, but in actual use? > Again, I don't really believe this proves much. NeXTStep is in Objective-C. BiiN OS was written in Ada, as well as the OS for the original Rational "Delta" machines. Does that mean that Ada won't become a language for "serious" programming (as if all us Ada people wore clown suits to work :-) until we have our own widespread OS? The focus of Ada is on multi-language (both human and computer) support, while preserving reliability AND efficiency. C/C++ grew from a different perspective. >I were to ride on the space shuttle, I would be concerned with how >well the software was written and tested, not what language it >was written in. I agree, but I'd be even more concerned with the engineering decisions being made before the system is designed. In a nutshell, the Ariane 5 rocket blew up because engineering management deliberately made a decision to avoid testing a specific situation because they didn't think it was critical enough! >maintain when justifing language aspects. When the ANSI standard was >submitted for public review, I believe the strongest objection was >that the language was *huge*, and this was before OO extension were >added. > *Whew* Good thing the ISO folks saw that error and corrected it: Now the ISO C++ draft standard is 20% larger than the Ada 95 standard! By the way, one should NEVER confuse "large" with "complex". >It is important to have a historical perspective on things. > Yes, but if your "facts" on Ada are more than two years old, they're outdated! -- Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada