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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!apollo!tedg From: tedg@apollo.HP.COM (Ted Grzesik) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 9X Mapping Message-ID: <5176c098.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 9 May 91 18:46:00 GMT References: <1991Apr15.144021.12618@aero.org| <72071@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May9.055530.1516@netcom.COM> Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Reply-To: tedg@apollo.HP.COM (Ted Grzesik) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA List-Id: In article <1991May9.055530.1516@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >Now now--let's not jump to conclusions. I've seen good C and wretched Ada, >no doubt about it: nobody ever claimed otherwise. What IS claimed is that >if you pull a listing at random from a pile of C programs and a listing >at random from a pile of Ada programs and compare them, the smart money >bet is that the Ada program is better engineered. About the worst Ada code I've seen is by someone that was obviously a prior C programmer. In general, I have observed code that was written in the syntax of one language, but used the style of another language. I worked on a large Ada program (an Ada compiler, to be precise) that used lots of UNCHECKED_CONVERSION and UNCHECKED_DEALLOCATION. Once you've introduced these two routines into your program, you're just writing fancy C code. Using these routines indicates either a flaw in your design or a limitation of the Ada language. Usually, it's a flaw in the design. My $0.02 Ted Grzesik Massachusetts Language Lab Hewlett-Packard Company tedg@apollo.hp.com Chelmsford, MA (508) 256-6600 x5959 "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)