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: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/25 Message-ID: <5jqvbj$bd9@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237359911 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <5j078b$b25$1@NNTP.MsState.Edu> <5j31lj$qnk@huron.eel.ufl.edu> <335F9D0E.41C67EA6@cacd.rockwell.com> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Suzette Norby wrote: >Since we're strolling down memory lane, let's go back a few more >years. The following, explaining why C was not even considered as >a candidate to be the common language, is quoted from "Ada - The >Project, The DoD High Order Language Working Group", copyright 1993, >which was originally published in ACM SIGPLAN Notices (Vol. 28, No. >3, March 1993).** > > ** Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material > is granted provided that the copies are not made or > distributed for direct commercial advantage, this ACM > copyright notice and the title of the publication and its > date appear, and notice is given that copying is by > permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To > copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee. > >(Complete text available at "http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/pol-hist/history/holwg-93/2.htm". >The following is found on the second "page".) > >"Evaluations > >The next step, beginning in June 1976, was the evaluation of >existing languages against the integrated set of requirements. > >... >Other languages were considered for formal evaluation, but were not >included because preliminary examination led one to believe that >they would not meet the requirements so were not viable candidates >for the purposes of the DoD. One such language was C. ... When Bell >Labs were invited to evaluate C against the DoD requirements, they >said that there was no chance of C meeting the requirements of >readability, safety, etc., for which we were striving, and that it >should not even be on the list of evaluated languages. We >recognized the truth in their observation and honored their >request." > >C then? Not even close. In whose opinion? Bell Labs' opinion! Yes, but they were the DOD's own requirements for a language *not* Bell Labs requirements on what constitutes an acceptable programming language to use on certain projects. >To get back to the present, there is a comparison (by David A. >Wheeler) of today's versions of "Ada, C, C++, and Java vs. The >Steelman" requirements at >"http://www.adahome.com/History/Steelman/steeltab.htm". It includes >the following table (see article for caveats and link to Steelman): > > Language "No" "Partial" "Mostly" "Yes" Percentage of > Answers with > "Mostly" or > "Yes" > > Ada 3 5 11 94 93% > C 32 21 1 44 53% > C++ 19 17 23 54 68% > Java 20 12 22 59 72% > > >C now? Still not close. C++? 68% might pass, but it won't get you >on the Dean's List. So, you design a language with some specific requirements and then compare it to those requirements, and low and behold, it beats several other languages *at its own requirements*. Don't you think there may be other reasons AT&T uses C++ as an in house langauge, and not Ada? It is obvious that the "Dean" in this case has his own daughter for a student. Also note that it is possible to create requirements that *no* language meets... Hey! That's exactly how Ada came about in the first place: no existing langauge would fit the bill. (I was going to use Scott Nudds' SPASM as an example, but this is a much better one.) For example, is Ada in anyway backward compatible with C? No! C++ Ada 92% 0% Boy, Ada has got some catching up to do... (I am not just being a smart ass, that was one of the specifications for C++, to the extent that they existed.) -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH All evolution in thought and conduct must at first appear as heresy and misconduct. -- George Bernard Shaw