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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: Craig Franck Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/20 Message-ID: <4vb399$kt8@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> X-Deja-AN: 175512439 references: <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4s4adc$l4a@ecuador.it.earthlink.net> <31EA0B65.3EF8@wgs.estec.esa.nl> <31EF7E48.5ABE@lmtas.lmco.com> <4ss8ru$3d4@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <31F28DBD.2A1D@harris.com> <31f3c52e.238719470 <4tnoeh$qjr@maverick.tad.eds.com> <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: AT&T WorldNet Services mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.cobol x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22ATT (Windows; U; 16bit) Date: 1996-08-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote: >In article <4v5pis$4h1@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck 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...