Re: Ada and QNX

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <39EB42B1.A14BDCB6@motorola.com>,
  Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:

> 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.

One is tempted to suppose a smiley is meant here, but other
evidence in Igor's posts make it clear that he certainly has
NOT read an Ada book carefully, so who knows?

>
> > 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++.

Things seem to become obvious to you in mysterious ways,
certainly objective information does not seem to be an
ingrediant in this process. The above statement is complete
nonsense.

Actually in my experience, Ada programs in general tend to
use far more of Ada than is true in the case of C++. I see
lots and lots of C++ programs that just completely ignore
very important parts of the language, including for example,
exceptions, name spaces, and the standard template library,
and indeed inheritance for many programs.

> 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.

I am beginning to think this is all a big joke, I think that
it is likely that Igor is just having fun in trolling. Since
it is hard to believe that anyone could be this blatant in
forming bogus conclusions with no data (note that Igor has
not even given a TRACE of evidence that he knows anything
about Ada other than how to properly case the name of the
language).

> Note that strictly speaking I never said Ada is wrong thing in
> general,

Given that you don't know Ada, that's probably wise, one of the
few wise decisions represented here.


> I just stated that it is not good for my personal taste.

Of course you have no way of knowing this, but I find many
people find that it is convenient to dismiss languages
without knowing them (and before the Ada folks join in
righteous agreement, hands up all those who are sure
COBOL is junk but don't know it!)

> My original intention was not to denounce Ada, but to say that
> pissing on C++ does not do any good for Ada.

I am reminded of Lieberman saying in a recent speach that he
would not criticize Bush, but would criticize his record. It
is definitely a bad idea to just generally denounce C++
without knowing it, and those who do, don't help and just
make themselves look silly (as Igor does when he generally
denounces Ada -- although if this is a clever troll, then
hats off, because it is very well done :-)

On the other hand if you DO know C++ well, it is quite in
bounds to specifically point out what is wrong with it. If
you really *do* know both languages, this is not hard to do!

> 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 :)

Not if you were deliberately trolling :-)


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