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: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/19 Message-ID: <782r25$k18$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434508810 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x11.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 19 20:48:10 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.vxworks,comp.realtime X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-01-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , gwinn@ma.ultranet.com (Joe Gwinn) wrote: > I think the point being made was that plain vanilla C was > less complex than Ada (83 and 95) and also C++. Not so fast! Complexity/Simplicity can talk about many things. Complexity of implementation Complexity of formal definition Complexity of informal definition Complexity of learning language Complexity of programs written in the language Often these are in direct competition. For example, adding exceptions as a primitive feature can complicate the definition and implementation, but it may very well simplify programs written using this feature. > A data point. In the 1980s, this same issue came up with > respect to K&R C and Ada83. To avoid unresolvable > theological debates, I "weighed" the DEC Ada and DEC C > compilers on VAX/VMS. The Ada compiler was ten times > larger. This is roughly the ratio of the sizes of their > respective language reference manuals as well. K&R C is NOT a reference manual, the proper comparison is the ANSI C standard vs the Ada standard. There is nothing LIKE a factor of 10 in this. By comparison with either of these standards, K&R is simply an informal description. Note that this comparison is on just one dimension, namely complexity of informal/formal definition. As for the size of the compilers, you were at that time not looking at modern optimizing compilers. If you repeat this experiment with modern optimizing compilers, you will find that for all the languages, the majority of the complexity, and weight of the compiler is in the optimizer. For example, even when using the GNAT front end, there are more lines of code in the gcc backend than in the front end. So you couldn't even reach a factor of 2 in that context. And of course this also measures only ONE of the components of complexity, namely complexity of implementation. > Assembly language is simpler than any high-order > language, but it's lots more work to code in assembly. Now let me guess. The last time you looked at machine language was in the 80's, right? Yes, in those days, the semantics of machine language was pretty simple. I am afraid that things have changed. At this stage the full execution semantics of a modern chip with extensive instruction-level parallelism is remarkably complex along ALL the dimensions I mention above. A chip like the Pentium II, if you include efficiency issues, which are indeed not fully documented publicly, let alone formally specified, you have something far MORE complicated than any of the languages we are talking about here. >> Yet, people still use assembly. Well barely ... Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own