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: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,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: <63aodd$t55$1@helios.crest.nt.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286014553 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com> <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au> 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 <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au>, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote: >Mike Copeland wrote: >> >> This has almost nothing to do with the "ease of learning" either >> language (and I feel C/C++ is much harder to do so than Pascal), but by >> some other factors: >> 1. The portability issue. C/C++ are basically portable across >> platforms, and this is an extremely important issue to corporate >> thinking. > >While I agree with most of your post, I must take issue here. C and C++ >are perceived as being portable. Inasmuch as there are almost no major No. C is perceived as being portable. Those who perceive C++ as portable are naive or mistaken. >computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's >a big, big selling point. >Now C++ on the other hand, written using CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac, ported >to CodeWarrior 10 on an IBM... or even MVC++ 4 vs MVC++ 5... or worse >still CodeWarrior 9 on a Mac to CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac to MVC++ 5 on an >IBM... In 15,000 LOCs of C++ how many would you reasonably expect to >have to be changed? (yes, these were actual examples too) C++ is not C however. What are your experiences with porting ANSI/ISO C code from one ISO compiler to another? C++ is not a standardized language, unlike Ada 83 or Ada 95, so you would expect to have porting problems with it. C has been standardized for close to a decade. Even though it's easy to introduce machine dependencies into C or C++ code, I would expect that most of your C++ headaches would be related to a lack of standardization, or the different pace of adaptation of the draft features by various vendors. (That alone is, to me, reason enough to avoid C++ if I can). C porting headaches usually stem from legacy ``classic'' C code, in which the chief difficulty is bugs uncovered when one adds function prototypes. Then there are dependencies of implementation characteristics: byte order, size of various types, and so forth. Mind you, it's also possible to write Ada programs with similar dependencies. Then there are uses of non-portable functions that are not in the standard library. E.g. it's impossible to port an XWindow application to Microsoft Windows without rewriting portions of it, but it's not really the fault of the underlying language. -- "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton