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: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/30 Message-ID: <5k67fl$eit@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238287803 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <5j078b$b25$1@NNTP.MsState.Edu> <5j31lj$qnk@huron.eel.ufl.edu> <335F9D0E.41C67EA6@cacd.rockwell.com> <5jqvbj$bd9@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote: >In article <5jqvbj$bd9@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck writes: > >> Suzette Norby wrote: >> >> >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. >... >> >"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. > >Well, you rather miss the mark on this particular comment as at least >two of the requirements in question ("readability, safety,") are not >exactly specific to DoD. Or do you think Bell Labs (or ATT) doesn't >really care about either issue? Actually, for all I know, maybe they >don't and your comment is in fact spot on. Oh, sure; why should they care if phone service is disrupted? I think you can argue which snippet is more readable. I think Ada may be a tad too verbose, and C a smidgeon too terse. PROCEDURE swap (a : IN OUT Integer; b : IN OUT Integer) IS temp : Integer; BEGIN temp := a; a := b; b := temp; END swap; void swap(int *a, int *b) { int temp; temp = *a; /**/ *a = *b; /**/ *b = temp; } (The /**/ are to stop Usenet from eating the "*" because it is the first nonwhitespace character on the line. I have *no* idea *why* it does this; it does the same thing with ".". I am sure if AT&T used Ada to implement their newsserver it wouldn't happen.) ;-) Anyway, is AND more readable than &&? Who knows. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH All evolution in thought and conduct must at first appear as heresy and misconduct. -- George Bernard Shaw