Re: Ada and QNX

[mjsilva@my-deja.com]

In article <39EB42B1.A14BDCB6@motorola.com>,
  Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:
> mjsilva@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com>,
> >   Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, yeah. I bought Ada book some years ago. So many capabilities.
> > Couple
> > > hundred pages worth of docs printed in small-font.
> >
> > You bought -a- book!?  You don't state that you've used Ada, or even
> > that you know it, but only that you bought -a- book.  And some years
> > ago at that -- maybe it didn't even cover the current standard (Ada
95
> > vs. Ada 83).
> >
>
> Sure, I bought a book simply to have it collect some dust. That's very
> reasonable assumption given that such fat books are usually rather
> expensive.

I've got plenty of books collecting dust.  I didn't buy them for that
purpose, but that's the end result anyway.  Rather than rely on
readers' assumptions why not be more clear in your writing?
>
> > Since when does one need to know "the whole damn thing" to use any
> > programming language or other complex tool?
> >
>
> Since the time it became obvious that if you don't want the whole Ada
> you might as well go with C/C++.

When it comes to e.g. C++ do you feel equally compelled to know "the
whole damn thing"?
>
> > > Ada is way too high and abstract to be good for system level
> > programming
> >
> > What low-level system-programming functionality is missing in Ada?
In
> > fact Ada has more low-level functionality than C or C++.  It was,
after
> > all, originally designed for -embedded- applications.
> >
>
> I did not say anything is missing. I said that it is 'too high' which
> should mean there is just too much stuff to bear along with what you
> really need in most cases.

OK, what 'too high' stuff must you bear in order to do system-level
programming in Ada?
>
> Note that strictly speaking I never said Ada is wrong thing in
general,
> I just stated that it is not good for my personal taste. My original
> intention was not to denounce Ada, but to say that pissing on C++ does
> not do any good for Ada. I see, nobody seems to want to continue the
> wedding analogy, but many are happy to let off some steam on me no
> matter how many disclaimers I put. I guess it was mistake to give you
> guys such an easy target :)

If you'd like to have a serious discussion on the relative merits of
C++ and Ada I'm sure this group can rise to the occasion.  Informed
criticism, BTW, is not the same as "pissing".

Mike


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.