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-Thread: 103376,fc52c633190162e0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why learn C? References: <1172144043.746296.44680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1172161751.573558.24140@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <546qkhF1tr7dtU1@mid.individual.net> <5ZULh.48$YL5.40@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <1175215906.645110.217810@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1175230700.925143.28490@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6XbPh.4025$u03.802@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <1175491660.511530.58430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:26:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4vd52mi9qv.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2G0k+b805j7RV85rmCtTDi6Zf6s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.209.234 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1175559552 88.72.209.234 (3 Apr 2007 02:19:12 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder2.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14779 Date: 2007-04-03T02:26:16+02:00 List-Id: "kevin cline" writes: > To me, it's a large advantage, and not narrowly focused at all. I > would think the inability to perform complete compile-time checking of > physical units would be pretty serious in real-time control > applications. Do Ada programmers make do with run-time type checking, > or just write more and more generic function instantiations until the > application is finished? The rest of use have more important things > to do. <...> > It's not safer, AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. But in the hands of experts, C > ++ allows compile-time type checking that is impossible in Ada. <...> > ... when used by poorly lead mediocre programmers. <...> > No doubt some programmers do. Good C++ programmers don't. I > certainly don't. Is this a macho / male ego thing to you? It certainly sounds like it. >> As for high-level programming, this is where Ada does excel. > > Not for most of us, because the advantages in safety are overwhelmed > by the increased verbosity. Haha. You don't sound like an experienced developer to my suspicious ears ... >> With all mechanisms available in Ada for developing solid, dependable >> code and a language definition that focuses on creating compilers that >> maximize the amount of error detection that can be done early in >> the development process, I wonder whether you really understand >> Ada at all. Have you any understanding of the visbility rules? This >> goes well beyond type-safety. Do you understand the library model >> and how it affects separate compilation? > > Do you understand how unimportant those theoretical considerations are > for those of us faced with time-to-market pressure? Do you understand "those of us faced with time to market pressure"? :-), indeed :-))). I see you hunting bugs after you shipped banana software then for the next years. > how the start of the art in C++ compilers and C++ programming has > advanced since Ada-95 was introduced? >> As for the safety of generics, Grein's paper, which you take delight >> in citing, does not discount the fact that most generic constructs >> are type-safe at compile time. Further, getting it right, with C++ >> templates is no trivial feat either. > Actually, it's pretty trivial once you learn to think at the right > level of abstraction. And if no one on a team can think at the right > level of abstraction, you will end up with a mess regardless of the > language chosen. :-))) >> There are plenty of opportunities >> to create errors in C++ templates. >> >> I have programmed in both languages. > > How much? > >> I have taught C++ > Which textbook did you use? > For me, the short reason is that Ada generics are not as powerful as C+ > + templates. The power of C++ templates has enabled me to write > compact, efficient type-safe application code at a very high level in > a way which is not possible in Ada. More marketing speak ... Regards -- Markus