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: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!! Date: 1997/10/30 Message-ID: <63afpe$oup$1@helios.crest.nt.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286877787 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <3456b9f3.0@news.eznet.net> <636m6l$55t@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , John Bode wrote: >Having learned C before Ada, I too found Ada overy picky -- at first. >However, after writing several thousand lines of code, I came to appreciate >it. Yes, Ada has a steeper *initial* learning curve than C. The tradeoff >comes after several months of practice. With Ada, the learning curve >tapers off rather quickly, whereas with C or C++, the learning curve is >flatter -- it's easier to get started coding, but it takes a longer time to >become truly *proficient* with the language. Is suspect that the difference has partly to do with the level of diagnosis. A beginner in C or C++ is lulled into a sense that he or she is writing a correct program just because the compiler accepts it. But to actually become a student of C or C++ and learn the languages _properly_ takes a great deal of effort. I can't say that I know ISO 9899:1990 C one hundred percent, even though I read random sections of the standard practically on a daily basis. >So why isn't Ada in more widespread use? Ada compilers, being somewhat >larger and more complex than C compilers, are likewise more expensive. Ada GNAT is 16 megabytes of Ada source code, I believe. :) Which probably translates to roughly 5 or 6 megs of C due to the extra verbiage. :) >was never marketed toward business -- it was designed for a specific >problem domain, and some of the more esoteric features were not perceived >to be immediately valuable (unfortunately -- hell, the exception handling >mechanism *alone* could simplify things by orders of magnitude). The Ada >development environment typically requires more horsepower than the C >development environment -- up until very recently, *serious* Ada >development required workstation-class machines. > >But the *biggest* reason C is in such demand? Inertia. People started >using C for no other reason than it was available and it was cheap and you >could develop C code on an AT-class machine. It certainly wasn't for Or XT, even. :) Also, don't forget that even eight bit micros had C compilers running on them. I didn't use C on an eight bit machine, but I did dare run Borland's Turbo Pascal 3.0 on a Z80-based CP/M machine with 48K ram. :) The compiler and executed code performed quite adequately, and with overlays it was possible to run large programs. Real work was done in assembly language, of course. -- "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton