Re: Death of C (Re: TH)

[davis@community-chest.uucp (Dave Davis)]

References: <12542446812.15.CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL>
Sender: 
Reply-To: davis@community-chest.UUCP (Dave Davis)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: MITRE-McLean Software Engineering Laboratory
Keywords: religeous wars

In article <12542446812.15.CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL> CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL writes:
> 
>>First, the programming style being promulgated by DOD for Ada is anti- 
>>conducive to the stated goal of readability;  it's like looking at a 
>>thousand-page novel such as "War and Peace" with three or four lines of 
>>programming code interspersed every second page or so.  The verbiage hides 
>>the logic.  When every variable name looks like: 
>>  
>>      "NUMBER_OF_CROWS_SALLY_ANNS_GRANDMOTHER_SHOT_WITH_HER_12_ 
>>      GAUGE_-LAST_TUESDAY", 
>>  
> 
>	Now were does it say this style is only for Ada? (It is recommended
>	for all languages). Even those crazy AI programmers and their
>	LISP use long identifiers.
> 
Aw, does the poor programmers liddul fingers hurt when he does all
that nasty typing that his boss insists on?  Here, let mommy kiss 'em
better.

I thought the only real excuse for obscure short names in software
source was the 6-column limit in Fortran 66 on label names.

> 
>>Second, DOD is often insisting on portability via Ada rather than 
>>portability via UNIX, POSIX calls etc.  

DOD is pushing for standardization, COTS, methods, languages,
reuse, databases, etc.  Everyone is real tired of busting their pick
while 100 people hack out a new system.

> 
>>A third is an over-emphasis on design, which often leads to grief in the 
>>real-world.......................................... 
> 
>	I wouldn't respond to this with a 10-foot keyboard cable. 

After all, its much more fun to code than it is to plan, think, try to
achieve consensus on what's to be done...our customers expect us to
take our work as seriously as they take their money.
> 
> 
>>A military project involving Sun machines and Ada was abandoned after 
>>something like 4 years and $30 million effort because of unacceptable 
>>performance;  database screens were taking over a minute to come up.

That's why one builds a prototype first, even in the days before computers...

>>hunky dory, only when they put the fricking thing together, it was too 
>>damned slow to use.  And, the remarkable thing is, the very system the 
>>military insists upon for management of software contracts prevented 
>>anybody from knowing they were in trouble until four years and millions 
>>had been blown.  The government people involved were essentially reduced 
>>to the role of actors in a Greek tragedy. 

Having been a part of some Greek successes and tragedies, the 2167
life-cycle doesn't prevent contractors from using their brains.  Part
of system design is budgeting MIPs and memory.  Also, someone has to
track whether the effort is on track with these budgets as the
software is constructed.  One can find out if the system is too big
for the hardware long before the last line of code is written.  And is
this issue a language issue?

> 
>>      Ada threatens to leave DoD stranded and technologically backwards; 
>>out of the mainstream of American computer science.............. 
> 

If loyalty to a mere language is what is required to be in the
mainstream, then we aren't making progress, whether its C, Ada, or
whatever.  I hope that Ada represents a trend away from the 60s
paradigm of programming so that the hardware runs real fast, all the
data is swimming in the soup of main memory, design is a coffee-break
discussion, and no one can understand one's code when a change is
needed.


======================================================================

Dave Davis		ddavis@mitre.org
MITRE Corp.
McLean, VA