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

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

jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
>In article <4v5pis$4h1@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> for C/C++ on Windows and UNIX platforms is the best of any language.
>> Yes, you can program in Ada on a UNIX platform but I would point 
>> out that the compiler is written in C.
>
>Criminey.  By now, having made several such goof-ball errors of fact,
>you would think that you would be just a little more careful before
>blowing some more smoke and looking even more clueless than you've
>already shown yourself to be.  The above statement is certainly not
>true of any of the Ada compilers that I've used - on UN* or not.  The
>one most people could use on UN* right now, GNAT (Gnu Ada) is written
>in Ada95 (while reusing the standard GCC backend for code generation).
>
>Is there any particular reason why you seem to like to parade your
>ignorance in public like this?

Ok, fine. I also have a C compiler written in C, a Pascal compiler
written in Pascal, and a BASIC compiler written in GEE WIZ BASIC. 
So yes, I imagine, if someone where to write an Ada compiler they would
write it in Ada95. The idea of using portable C to write compilers 
and then port them to other platforms was a hoax.

I have a CD-ROM from Simtel with ports of GNU 1.81 & 1.83 (GNU NYU Ada9x)
to Solaris, SunOS, Linux, HP, OS/2, and MS-DOS. I was not aware
they were all written in Ada95, (some compilers on the disk are for Ada83;
they may be written in Ada83) and the standard GCC backend was used. 

>> 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?
>
>Compilers: A lot.  OSs: Boatloads.  You can legitimately argue that
>virtually all embedded systems have OSs as part of their definition
>and function.

Thank you for answering that question! If I were to be asked to 
with what language a compiler or OS would be best written I would
say C/C++. That is just my opinion.

>> Well alot of the code for the telephone switching system is written 
>> in C/C++. The system did become unstable do to (how ironic!) a poorly coded
>> switch statement back in 1990, but on the whole I don't think there
>
>How would you know?  My guess is that the things have several backups
>in case of failures (software or hardware).

I know from talking to people, and reading books. A recent popular
book discused the notion of the C switch statement as a language defect
and pointed to the long distance phone service for AT&T becoming unstable. 
Some psudo-code was given. Yes, things like 911 service have so much
fault tolerance built in to the system that chance of falure is slim. 

>> 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
>
>Sure.  And?  If there is any point here it concerns whether the
>language helps in these regards.  There's a whole spectrum here from
>actively helpful to passively benign to actively pernicious.  May as
>well use the actively helpful.

The point I was tring to make is you can write bad code in any 
language. Good programmers and software support are as important
as the language. Puting training wheels on a language by being 
able to write : FOR I IN Data 'RANGE LOOP
                  Put(Data(I), 3);
                END LOOP;
because programmers can't count, may be helpfull.


>> Well see above, and call AT&T and tell them that that they better get 
>> started writing everything in Ada right away! :-) 
>
>AT&T is irrelevant.  For several reasons.  Not the least of which is
>that they have more old dog inertia than is humanly comprehensible.

AT&T is perhaps irrelevant to you. But for some people Ada 
is irrelevant. Perhaps it is from irrelevancy that ignorance 
springs.

>> 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.
>
>Yes, this is another "software urban legend".  I suppose the fact that
>the C++ draft is significantly bigger than ISO 8652:1995 eludes you.
>This despite the fact that the Ada standard supports easy expression
>of anything C++ does (often much simpler) and many things that C++
>does not support, including full support for concurrent programming
>and out of the box interoperation with other languages.

I feel that as a language becomes larger and larger, learning
and implementing that language becomes more and more difficult.
But maybe its just a legend amoung C programmers that Ada is 
big. Someone once told me that the only good thing you could
say about Ada was in it there was a good little language struggling 
to get out. But he must have not had a clue either. Maybe my 
problem is the people I hang out with...

>> It is important to have a historical perspective on things.
>
>Yes.  Unfortunately, you continue to show that you do not have a clue
>about the current situation let alone the historical one.

Well, how well someone is "clued in" on something is a relative 
thing. I feel I know more about Ada now then when I started posting
on this thread. If you view this learning process as "ignorance on
parade" that is fine with me!

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