Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96]

John Black <nospam@NOSPAM.AMERICAN.EDU> writes:
>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
>only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
>learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.
>
    Does anybody remember a certain Right Reverend who used to lurk
    about this newsgroup from time to time. Is it possible that he's
    returned under a different guise? I guess I'll find out if my boss
    starts getting calls about what an asshole I am and there are
    public threats of lawsuits.

    Or maybe Mr. Black is just some graduate student's artificial
    intelligence experiment? So far, I'd only give it a grade of C-
    (C-- ?) since it hasn't exhibited much "intelligence" - artificial
    or otherwise.

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer     Voice:     561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-96, P.O.B. 109600  Fax:       561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600                  Internet:  CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
    "Having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as
    of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
        --  G.K. Chesterton
===============================================================================

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Stevens]

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:42:42 -0800, Dr E. Buxbaum <EB15@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>John Stevens wrote:
>> >If you have an Ada compiler
>> 
>> That *IF*, being the gotcha.
>> Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?
>
>I have not worked with it personally, but there is the Gnu Ada compiler
>(Gnat). So in theory you should be able to run Ada on any system which
>is supported by Gnu software, including Linux.

But as suggested, I've never gotten it to work under Linux.  If anybody
has, is the result "true" Ada (does the compiler compile any legal Ada
program) and if so, to what standard does it comply?

John S.

ADA SUCKS, C/C++/JAVA RULES!!!!

[John Black]

I have tried and tried to program with Ada, but it is downright
impossible.  I just don't see how anyone could - or would want to -
use this outdated piece of crap.  It's back to C++ and Java for me.
Hopefully Ada and other languages will go the way of the dinosaur and
get hit by a meteor, disappearing from the face of the earth.

Re: ADA SUCKS, C/C++/JAVA RULES!!!!

[John Black]

You guys say what you want but it's true.  ADA is good for nothing.
C++, on the other hand, is the only language you need.

ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Black]

ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[David A. Frantz]

ADA and Pascal hard to learn he he.    Just how many programmers out there
have a handle on C++.    The whole package; STL, IOstreams, Class,
Templates - I could go on and on but the point is that there are only a
handful of people out there with a complete understanding of C++.    Then
there is the Question of how many of those are actually productive with it.
If C++ is that simple then we should be able to find VALIDATED compilers on
the market, far as I Know there is none out there.

The problem with ADA is that it is rejected by the hacker cult that started
out on C.    Mean while C & C++ have been rejected by anybody who has to
ship a product under tight deadlines and high quality expectations.   i.e.
anyone working for a corporation.



Dave

John Black wrote in message <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com>...
>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
>only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
>learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Shombe Kroll]

Hello everyone, I hate to say it but my sentiments are with Mr. Black to a
small degree.  My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
aids for the language.  That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.  The lack of being able to
obtain outside sources from my local computer store ie : "ADA for Dummies"
left me with a feeling of complete frustration while I spent the semester
copying and reediting code from my fellow struggling classmates in order to
pass the course.
However, struggling with ADA did give me an appreciation for the process of
writing source code, and I have found that the fundamentals that I learned
with ADA are applicable to me as I learn C++.  <-- By the way this time I am
writing my own code),

>John Black wrote in message <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com>...
>>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Bode]

In article <636m6l$55t@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Shombe Kroll"
<Shombe@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Hello everyone, I hate to say it but my sentiments are with Mr. Black to a
> small degree.  My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
> it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
> aids for the language.  

I had the exact same experience, but the language was C.

>                          That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
> which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.  The lack of being able to
> obtain outside sources from my local computer store ie : "ADA for Dummies"
> left me with a feeling of complete frustration while I spent the semester
> copying and reediting code from my fellow struggling classmates in order to
> pass the course.

I had the exact same experience, but the language was C.

> However, struggling with ADA did give me an appreciation for the process of
> writing source code, and I have found that the fundamentals that I learned
> with ADA are applicable to me as I learn C++.  <-- By the way this time I am
> writing my own code),
> 

Having learned C before Ada, I too found Ada overy picky -- at first. 
However, after writing several thousand lines of code, I came to appreciate
it.  Yes, Ada has a steeper *initial* learning curve than C.  The tradeoff
comes after several months of practice.  With Ada, the learning curve
tapers off rather quickly, whereas with C or C++, the learning curve is
flatter -- it's easier to get started coding, but it takes a longer time to
become truly *proficient* with the language.

So why isn't Ada in more widespread use?  Ada compilers, being somewhat
larger and more complex than C compilers, are likewise more expensive.  Ada
was never marketed toward business -- it was designed for a specific
problem domain, and some of the more esoteric features were not perceived
to be immediately valuable (unfortunately -- hell, the exception handling
mechanism *alone* could simplify things by orders of magnitude).  The Ada
development environment typically requires more horsepower than the C
development environment -- up until very recently, *serious* Ada
development required workstation-class machines.

But the *biggest* reason C is in such demand?  Inertia.  People started
using C for no other reason than it was available and it was cheap and you
could develop C code on an AT-class machine.  It certainly wasn't for
technical superiority.  Over the past twenty years, a *lot* of code has
been written in C, so you need a lot of developers familiar with C to
maintain it, and since all they know is C, all new development is done in
C, etc., etc., etc.  

Suddenly, along comes C++, and all that C experience gets leveraged into
what appears to be a fully buzzword-compliant OOL that, in reality, falls
short of what an OOL could and should be.  Ada certainly isn't the be-all
and end-all of OOP, but I find it a lot easier to deal with than C++.

-- 
John Bode
one grumpy code monkey

"Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days

To email me directly, remove the 'nospam.' from my address.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <jfbode-ya023380002910972057140001@news.earthlink.net>,
John Bode <jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Having learned C before Ada, I too found Ada overy picky -- at first. 
>However, after writing several thousand lines of code, I came to appreciate
>it.  Yes, Ada has a steeper *initial* learning curve than C.  The tradeoff
>comes after several months of practice.  With Ada, the learning curve
>tapers off rather quickly, whereas with C or C++, the learning curve is
>flatter -- it's easier to get started coding, but it takes a longer time to
>become truly *proficient* with the language.

Is suspect that the difference has partly to do with the level of diagnosis.  A
beginner in C or C++ is lulled into a sense that he or she is writing a correct
program just because the compiler accepts it. 

But to actually become a student of C or C++ and learn the languages _properly_
takes a great deal of effort.

I can't say that I know ISO 9899:1990 C one hundred percent, even though I read
random sections of the standard practically on a daily basis.

>So why isn't Ada in more widespread use?  Ada compilers, being somewhat
>larger and more complex than C compilers, are likewise more expensive.  Ada

GNAT is 16 megabytes of Ada source code, I believe. :) Which probably
translates to roughly 5 or 6 megs of C due to the extra verbiage. :)

>was never marketed toward business -- it was designed for a specific
>problem domain, and some of the more esoteric features were not perceived
>to be immediately valuable (unfortunately -- hell, the exception handling
>mechanism *alone* could simplify things by orders of magnitude).  The Ada
>development environment typically requires more horsepower than the C
>development environment -- up until very recently, *serious* Ada
>development required workstation-class machines.
>
>But the *biggest* reason C is in such demand?  Inertia.  People started
>using C for no other reason than it was available and it was cheap and you
>could develop C code on an AT-class machine.  It certainly wasn't for

Or XT, even. :) Also, don't forget that even eight bit micros had C compilers
running on them. I didn't use C on an eight bit machine, but I did dare run
Borland's Turbo Pascal 3.0 on a Z80-based CP/M machine with 48K ram. :) The
compiler and executed code performed quite adequately, and with overlays it was
possible to run large programs. Real work was done in assembly language, of
course.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Gary A. Wiltshire]

jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net (John Bode) wrote:
.....
>So why isn't Ada in more widespread use?
.....

Because the Federal government mandated its use?<g>

   --- Gary Wiltshire

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Nat Pryce]

Shombe Kroll wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone, I hate to say it but my sentiments are with Mr. Black to a
> small degree.  

I'm trying to understand your thought processes...

> My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
> it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
> aids for the language.  That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
> which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.  The lack of being able to
> obtain outside sources from my local computer store ie : "ADA for Dummies"
> left me with a feeling of complete frustration while I spent the semester
> copying and reediting code from my fellow struggling classmates in order to
> pass the course.

Hmm... so Ada is crap because your teacher is not helpful and your
nearest
bookstore has a small selection of books?  Did you ever think of
*ordering*
a good book on Ada?

> However, struggling with ADA did give me an appreciation for the process of
> writing source code, and I have found that the fundamentals that I learned
> with ADA are applicable to me as I learn C++.  <-- By the way this time I am
> writing my own code),

So, you think that C++ is good because you have already learnt the
basics of 
programming?

Have you ever considered that *programming* is difficult?  Whether you
learn 
in Ada or C++, there is a learning curve to climb.  Once you have
understood 
the principles then any language becomes easier to learn.  You might
very well
have learnt the languages the other way round, in which case you would
be
on the opposite side of this flame-fest :-)

-- 
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| Name:   Nat Pryce MEng ACGI              | Dept. of Computing, |
| Email:  np2@doc.ic.ac.uk                 | Imperial College,   |
| Tel:    +44 (0)171 594 8394              | 180 Queen's Gate,   |
| Fax:    +44 (0)171 581 8024              | London SW7 2BZ,     |
| WWW:    http://www-dse.doc.ic.ac.uk/~np2 | United Kingdom      |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Mike Copeland]

> Hello everyone, I hate to say it but my sentiments are with Mr. Black to a
> small degree.  My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
> it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
> aids for the language.  

   Well, it seems you missed a fundamental fact: it's "Ada", not "ADA".  
This language, like Pascal (not "PASCAL"), is named for someone (it's a 
proper name, not an acronym).  I daresay if you had learned this and a 
few other points, you might not be so antagonistic about some of these 
things...

> That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
> which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.  The lack of being able to
> obtain outside sources from my local computer store ie : "ADA for Dummies"
> left me with a feeling of complete frustration while I spent the semester
> copying and reediting code from my fellow struggling classmates in order to
> pass the course.

   You poor thing - you actually had to _learn_ something on its own 
merits, by your own work and instructor interaction, and there wasn't a 
"Cliff's Notes" to work from.  It's truly a shame how the education 
system has fallen in these last 10-20 years...

> However, struggling with ADA did give me an appreciation for the process of
> writing source code, and I have found that the fundamentals that I learned
> with ADA are applicable to me as I learn C++.  <-- By the way this time I am
> writing my own code),

   Did you think that computer programs somehow "wrote themselves" and  
that you _wouldn't_ have to do such things?  Did you sleep through your 
high school computer classes, as well?  What did you _expect_???

> >>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
> >>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,

   Him, too - what _did_ he expect?...

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Black]

Shombe, I feel your pain.  I'm embroiled in a Comparative Programming
Language class where we have to program in Ada, and the thing is so
impossible, I'm lucky to even get it to compile, never mind Constraint
Errors.  And why bother sweating over a language that nobody uses!?
At least I know C++, and I can pick up Java relatively easily.
Knowing Ada and Pascal are almost as useful as knowing outer space
basket weaving.

"Shombe Kroll" <Shombe@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Hello everyone, I hate to say it but my sentiments are with Mr. Black to a
>small degree.  My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
>it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
>aids for the language.  That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
>which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.  The lack of being able to
>obtain outside sources from my local computer store ie : "ADA for Dummies"
>left me with a feeling of complete frustration while I spent the semester
>copying and reediting code from my fellow struggling classmates in order to
>pass the course.
>However, struggling with ADA did give me an appreciation for the process of
>writing source code, and I have found that the fundamentals that I learned
>with ADA are applicable to me as I learn C++.  <-- By the way this time I am
>writing my own code),

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Olof Oberg]

John Black wrote:
> 
> Shombe, I feel your pain.  I'm embroiled in a Comparative Programming
> Language class where we have to program in Ada, and the thing is so
> impossible, I'm lucky to even get it to compile, never mind Constraint
> Errors.  And why bother sweating over a language that nobody uses!?
> At least I know C++, and I can pick up Java relatively easily.
> Knowing Ada and Pascal are almost as useful as knowing outer space
> basket weaving.

Well I think you have misunderstood what programming is. You 
don't pick your problems after your favorite tool. You pick 
your tools after the problems. I.e. knowing how Ada works is 
not unuseful (Pascal is an other issue when Modula is a better 
choice). Btw, isn't the goal of that course to get an insight 
in different languages? Picking one you (and maybe most of your 
class mates) know is generally a bad idea. Like here we get 
ML as a first language. A language people rarely even heard 
about and therefore they all stand on equal grounding when they 
are supposed to go from writing programs to building software. 

Personally I have only briefly covered Ada in a Programming 
Langauge Theory course.

 /mill

-- 
#############################################################
# millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se # http://pedgr571.sn.umu.se/~mill #
#############################################################

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2329 bytes --]


"Shombe Kroll" <Shombe@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>My first programming class in college was in ADA and I found
>it very difficult to learn because of the lack of documentation and help
>aids for the language.  That  forced me to rely on my Professor for help
>which unfortunately was like pulling teeth.

This is by no means an Ada problem.
There are a couple of good on-line tutorials.
There are some truly excellent text-books.
Our first-year students here have easy on-line access to the RM,
which _isn't_ introductory educational material, but if you have
a specific question, it's amazing what you can find.
There are Ada-aware editors including some with on-line help.

Your lecturer and tutors are *paid* to give you help;
if getting it is 'like pulling teeth', you have a legitimate
complaint which you should bring to your department.

We teach Ada in first year and C in second year (as a bread-and-butter
subject, not because C has any special merits).  I have inspected quite
a lot of Ada textbooks and more C textbooks than I can recall without
turning my stomach.  It is important to understand that most C _books_
are bad, except for the ones that are very very bad.  I have in mind,
for example, the textbook that said on p6 that all the code conformed
to the ANSI standard but had an example on p7 that violated it.  Beware
in particular of "A Book on C" and anything by Herbert Schildt.

Curiously, C is in many respects a much harder language than Ada.
You _can_ write excellent programs in C, but it is much more work
than it is in Ada.  I'm marking some graduate student code at the
moment.  One student in particular has written a program that is
actually going to be used in a major department store.  (They have
paid for it, and indeed, it's an upgrade of a program he wrote for
them last year.)  It's _supposed_ to be written in C, but in fact
it isn't.  I mean by this that it violates the C standard in many
completely pointless ways, which prevent it compiling under any
compiler except the particular compiler he used.  He didn't _mean_
to violate the standard (except for calling a couple of DOS-specific
'interrupts'), but that's what he ended up with.

-- 
John �neas Byron O'Keefe; 1921/02/04-1997/09/27; TLG,TLTA,BBTNOTL.
Richard A. O'Keefe; RMIT Comp.Sci; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Black]

Then why do the want ads for C, C++ programmers could stretch from
here to the moon, while Ada/Pascal programmers are nonexistent?  Like
I said, if you program in Ada or Pascal, your best job is going to be
taking orders at Red Lobster.

>The problem with ADA is that it is rejected by the hacker cult that started
>out on C.    Mean while C & C++ have been rejected by anybody who has to
>ship a product under tight deadlines and high quality expectations.   i.e.
>anyone working for a corporation.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Mike Copeland]

   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.  It's more important to the executives/decision makers of most 
companies that their key applications can be moved to other vendor's 
hardware when financial issues force such switches, than to have 
implementation languages which their programmers like and find easy to 
learn.
  2. Pascal and Ada (which is often called a highly enriched Pascal) 
weren't designed as application development vehicles - whereas C/C++ 
were.  Pascal was invented as a teaching tool for structured and module 
problem solving, to show and overcome the faults of weakly typed and 
inherently undisciplined coding languages of the past (e.g. COBOL, 
ForTran, BASIC, assembler, etc.).  There was almost no thought given to 
I/o, databases, strings, and performance issues with Wirth's Pascal, and 
he designed the language to teach the initial concepts of program 
correctness, and modular design.  It wasn't until Borland marketed Turbo 
Pascal (which they didn't initially write) that Pascal became a real 
implementation tool, instead of the "teaching toy" it really was.  
However, Pascal is almost non-existent in the business environment, 
regardless of how many hobbiests and PC programmers make effective use of 
it....sigh
   Ada, OTOH, was designed for implementation of secure and fail-safe 
systems for the Government.  It was based on Pascal concepts (very strong 
typing, modularity, consistency, etc.), but was taken much farther than 
was useful to the general world.  Learning Ada should be considered an 
educational experience, at best, because no one uses it.  And I agree 
it's very hard to learn and work with, even coming from a Pascal 
background.  Nonetheless, Ada provides some interesting and useful things 
for any serious programmer to think about and use in his/her work.

> Then why do the want ads for C, C++ programmers could stretch from
> here to the moon, while Ada/Pascal programmers are nonexistent?  Like
> I said, if you program in Ada or Pascal, your best job is going to be
> taking orders at Red Lobster.
> 
> >The problem with ADA is that it is rejected by the hacker cult that started
> >out on C.    Mean while C & C++ have been rejected by anybody who has to
> >ship a product under tight deadlines and high quality expectations.   i.e.
> >anyone working for a corporation.
> 

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <MPG.ec1256665b68f1b98979d@news.primenet.com>,
Mike Copeland <mrcope@primenet.com> wrote:
>was useful to the general world.  Learning Ada should be considered an 
>educational experience, at best, because no one uses it.  And I agree 

That is nonse. Perhaps by ``noone'' you mean ``nobody in Windows land'',
and even after that correctio it is false.

Next door to me, a prominent company is developing an air traffic control
system using Ada in a joint venture with other companies.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Alan E & Carmel J Brain]

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
computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's
a big, big selling point.

However....

C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
code cross-platform. In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems
I've had with any C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've
had with Ada crossplatform put together! If you have an Ada compiler by
brand A on target X, the same code has a high probability of being
correct out-of-the-box by brand B on target X, and will often work with
brand C on target Y.

Example: 15,000 LOCs originally written on an IBM-386 using Thomson (now
Aonix) Ada-83, ported to a microVax running an Irvine compiler in
Australia for checking, then transmitted to Germany to run on a microVax
using DecAda, and finally using the Winterstein Compiler onto a KAV-30
embedded system.
3 lines of code had to be changed (in Australia). Due to bugs.
Yes, this is an actual example, of a Knowledge-based real-time
subsytem's components.

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)  

-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  
                    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Jon S Anthony]

Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:

> C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
> Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
> code cross-platform.

That's about right.  Porting anything of substance written in C even
between compilers on the _same_ platform is depressing.  FOE here...

> In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems I've had with any
> C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've had with Ada
> crossplatform put together!

That rings true as well.  Typically porting Ada code between platforms
or compilers amounts to a recompilation.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Craig Franck]

Jon S Anthony <jsa@synquiry.com> wrote:
>Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>
>> C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
>> Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
>> code cross-platform.
>
>That's about right.  Porting anything of substance written in C even
>between compilers on the _same_ platform is depressing.  FOE here...

Sounds like you may have been a victim of the run of your patients.
Well written C code is very portable. I've seen compiler upgrades
break code, but only because it was trash to begin with.

>> In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems I've had with any
>> C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've had with Ada
>> crossplatform put together!
>
>That rings true as well.  Typically porting Ada code between platforms
>or compilers amounts to a recompilation.

Something like a Windows to Mac port? How platform specific was the 
code? A recompilation port would be the ideal we all chase after. If
you have such great splatfrom tools, you should feel lucky.

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several
days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Jon S Anthony]

Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Jon S Anthony <jsa@synquiry.com> wrote:
> >Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
> >
> >> C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
> >> Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
> >> code cross-platform.
> >
> >That's about right.  Porting anything of substance written in C even
> >between compilers on the _same_ platform is depressing.  FOE here...
> 
> Sounds like you may have been a victim of the run of your patients.
> Well written C code is very portable. I've seen compiler upgrades
> break code, but only because it was trash to begin with.

Yes, I thnk I can agree with that.  But the point is it is so _easy_
(though not as much with ANSI C) to write such trash.  Even by
"accident".


> >That rings true as well.  Typically porting Ada code between platforms
> >or compilers amounts to a recompilation.
> 
> Something like a Windows to Mac port? How platform specific was the 
> code? A recompilation port would be the ideal we all chase after. If
> you have such great splatfrom tools, you should feel lucky.

I've not had any need (or opportunity) to port to Mac.  The code in
question went between VMS (VAX&Alpha), Sparc Solaris, Sparc SunOS,
HP-UX, Intel Win/NT and across three different compilers.

One was about 60K lines with lots of generics and tasks.

Another was around 200K lines with lots of (goofy use) of generics.

No #ifdefs stuff anywhere in site.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <ufzpnpwt96.fsf@synquiry.com>  ** none **   writes:

>Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Jon S Anthony <jsa@synquiry.com> wrote:
>> >Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>> >
>> >> C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
>> >> Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
>> >> code cross-platform.
>> >
>> >That's about right.  Porting anything of substance written in C even
>> >between compilers on the _same_ platform is depressing.  FOE here...
>> 
>> Sounds like you may have been a victim of the run of your patients.
>> Well written C code is very portable. I've seen compiler upgrades
>> break code, but only because it was trash to begin with.
>
>Yes, I thnk I can agree with that.  But the point is it is so _easy_
>(though not as much with ANSI C) to write such trash.  Even by
>"accident".

It depends on how well you know the language. One of the problems with
C is that it has become a "mass-market" language that is badly taught.
Not enough distinction is made between the standard language and what
it guarantees (and indeed how to make good use of those guarantees) and
implementation attributes and extensions. Once you do know the difference
it is quite easy to write portable code in C. It is also what the
comp.lang.c regulars try to promote.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Rud Merriam]

Jon S Anthony wrote in message ...
>Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>
>> C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
>> Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
>> code cross-platform.
>
>That's about right.  Porting anything of substance written in C even
>between compilers on the _same_ platform is depressing.  FOE here...

Gee, I guess that C satellite communications system I designed in the late
80's must not have been as well done as I thought. There were three
components for the system. Each would run on a PC using Borland C and on the
target system cross-compiled C to a 6809. The trick - cross-compile and test
frequently and often. To write portable code you have to start with that
goal in mind.

>
>> In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems I've had with any
>> C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've had with Ada
>> crossplatform put together!
>
>That rings true as well.  Typically porting Ada code between platforms
>or compilers amounts to a recompilation.

I have a C++ app that is intended to be portable. We are currently having
problems with STL because the first pass is in VC++ using that STL which is
pretty close to the standard draft. But once we can get an STL that works
with the other compilers (Watcom for one) I expect 80% or more of the code
to port with no changes. The other 20% is mainly OS specific code and all
that is isolated in separate functions. Implement those functions and you
have ported the code.

I used to have a serial comm library that was portable across 4 compilers
*and* 5 different types of serial ports. All that was needed to support new
systems was to tie into a real-time clock tick, the serial port interrupt,
and write the low level get/put characters.

>
>/Jon
>
>--
>Jon Anthony
>Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
>"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
> Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Rud Merriam
Houston

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au>,
Alan E & Carmel J Brain  <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> 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

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3450 bytes --]


kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>No. C is perceived as being portable. Those who perceive C++ as portable
>are naive or mistaken.

>In article <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au>,
>Alan E & Carmel J Brain  <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>>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)  

Let me provide a data point.
I am using a modern UNIX system, based on an architecture that has been
around for 10 years or so.  We have the very latest C++ compiler from
the vendor.  We have another C++ compiler.

I picked up the September 1997 issue of the C/C++ Users Journal,
and downloaded all of the source code for that issue.
How many of the C++ programs could I compile?

	NONE OF THEM.

I got one of them working after about half an hour of hacking; the
others defeated me.

Porting from one version of CodeWarrior to another is no real test of
portability; no test at all really.  C++ compiler differences are
*much* bigger than machine differences.

Porting from one version of MVC++ to another is no real test of
portability; no test at all really.  C++ compiler differences are
*much* bigger than machine differences.

Porting between CodeWarrior and MVC++ *is* a test of portability,
but it still is a rather pathetic test.

If I had to port 15 kSLOC of C++ from a Mac or a PC to this system,
I would expect major changes to every translation unit and minor
changes to every class.  I would not be in the least suprised if
a week's work led to total failure.  I am aware of several C++
projects which have had to abandon initial plans to release the code
on more than one machine; there was one commercial development
started here that ran into that very problem last year, and another
up the road the year before.

Let's just take a few of the things I'm seeing in C++ these days that
are NOT supported by all compilers:
	namespace
	mutable
	explicit
	static data members initialised in a class definition
	template<>	(that is, a template with no parameters).

>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).

That is precisely the problem.

>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.

(A) Let us all thank and praise Ousterhout for Tk.  (And there's an Ada/Tk
    interface.  Portable GUIs in Ada.)

(B) There's an outfit called Mainsoft (www.mainsoft.com) selling something
    called MainWin, which they claim lets you run NT code under UNIX.
    I know _nothing_ about the company or their products other than what
    I've seen in their ad.  Anyone know how well it works with the Ada
    Win32 binding?

-- 
John �neas Byron O'Keefe; 1921/02/04-1997/09/27; TLG,TLTA,BBTNOTL.
Richard A. O'Keefe; RMIT Comp.Sci; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <63c3n8$nhp$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>I picked up the September 1997 issue of the C/C++ Users Journal,
>and downloaded all of the source code for that issue.
>How many of the C++ programs could I compile?
>
>	NONE OF THEM.

Part of your problem was the publication you refer to above.   As you probably
know, the CUJ is only good for playing ``spot the error'' when you are done
flipping through Playboy at your local magazine rack. :)

Your are extremely optimistic if you expect code from the CUJ to compile, not
to mention adhere to some programming language standard and have conservative
portability assumptions.  :)

>I got one of them working after about half an hour of hacking; the
>others defeated me.

You probably spent more time right there than what it took to write and verify
the entire article before printing. :)
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Stevens]

On 30 Oct 1997 11:50:05 -0800, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@helios.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>No. C is perceived as being portable. Those who perceive C++ as portable
>are naive or mistaken.

If you use the entire language, you are correct, it isn't very portable.

But, if you stick with the standard stuff, there isn't much to worry
about.

>C++ is not a standardized language, unlike Ada 83 or Ada 95, so you would
>expect to have porting problems with it.

You might, but so far, I haven't had any problems with the *language*.

John S.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Stevens]

On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>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
>computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's
>a big, big selling point.
>
>However....
>
>C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
>Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
>code cross-platform.

Speaking (err, that is, writing! ;->).

I have written code specifically designed to be ported across platforms.

Note that most of the results of the GNU project have been ported across
platforms as well, and lately the results have been quite good.

The limiting factor in portability is almost always OS or library issues,
not incompatibilities in the language itself.

>In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems
>I've had with any C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've
>had with Ada crossplatform put together!

Well, considering I was unable to port an Ada program to two of the five
platforms I was targeting, while I was able to port a C program to all five,
I'd have to say that C is infinitely more portable.

YMMV, and all that.

>If you have an Ada compiler

That *IF*, being the gotcha.

Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?

>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)  

Note your choice of compiler.  This has a lot to do with it.

Now, using GCC. . . 

John S.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <slrn66211n.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:

>Well, considering I was unable to port an Ada program to two of the five
>platforms I was targeting, while I was able to port a C program to all five,
>I'd have to say that C is infinitely more portable.

No, you would have to say that C was 5/3 times as portable in your scenario. :)

>YMMV, and all that.
>
>>If you have an Ada compiler
>
>That *IF*, being the gotcha.
>
>Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?

I have used GNAT under Linux. It works.

Mind you, the first Ada program I tried to write was so bad, that the compiler
core dumped.

I was lightly amused, since it's written in Ada which is purported to prevent
such errors.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Robert Dewar]

John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:

>Well, considering I was unable to port an Ada program to two of the five
>platforms I was targeting, while I was able to port a C program to all five,
>I'd have to say that C is infinitely more portable.

No, you would have to say that C was 5/3 times as portable in your scenario. :)

>YMMV, and all that.
>
>>If you have an Ada compiler
>
>That *IF*, being the gotcha.
>
>Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?


Robert Dewar replies

Since you are clearly unaware of what Ada compilers are available, it is
quite possible that your failure to successfully port Ada to some of your
platforms was simply a matter of not finding out how it could be done.
Yes, of course people have used Ada on a Linux box. As you can easily
discover if you look just a little bit, GNAT is fully implemented and
fully validated on Linux, as well as a dozen other platforms. We have a
number of commercially supported customers using Linux.

You can incidentally immediately discover that GNAT is fully implemented
on Linux by accessinfg the official list of validated Ada compilers. Any
Ada programmer should be aware of how to do this, since this is all publicly
available information.

The implementation of Ada 95 on Linux, like all other implementations of
GNAT supported by Ada Core Technologies, is a 100% full implementation of
the core language and all the annexes. We regard it as particularly
significant, since it means that GNAT + GNU + Linux form a 100% free
software solution in the Ada 95 area.

There are many reasons for difficulties in porting programs in any
languages:

  o incompetent use of the language
  o legitimate implementation dependent features
  o inadequacies in compilers
  o fundamental portability flaws in the language design

In the case of Ada, with the set of implementations available today, there
are very few portability problems if any that can be attributed to the
last two reasons. Incompetent programmers can of course write non-portable
code in any language. In particular, to write portable code you MUST be
aware of the defining standard, it is not good enough to informally knows
what happens to work with your compiler.

One real advantage of Ada over C is that Ada programmers tend to be at
least somewhat familiar with the Ada standard, and can be expected to
have a copy available, at least for reference purposes. The C standard
is very much less well known among C programmers (you only have to look
at some of the idiotic statements posted about C in the sizeof(int)
discussion to see how many C programmers have strange ideas about C).
Alternatively ask a roomful of Ada programmers how many have a copy of
the standard available to them and routinely reference it. You will
get essentially 100% yes response. Now ask the same question to a
roomfull of C programmers.

One reason for the difference is that the Ada standard has always been
completely freely available electronically, without copyright problems,
and inexpensive printed copies have also been available. The Ada community
fought hard to achieve this (at one point the ISO standardization was in
the balance over a resulting copyright controversy). Many other language
standards have not been so fortunate. I don't know the current situation
(I know that Ada has inspired other standards groups to try to liberate
their standards), but certainly earlier, the ANSI C standard was relatively
unavailable, and expensive.

Another reason is the culture and circumstances. People tend to have learned
C informally, and figure they know it without need to reference a standard.
Indeed I often meet C programmers who don't really know what the ANSI
standard for C *is*, let alone having a copy of it that they have read.
In the Ada world, everyone knows about the Ada standard, and is very aware
that knowing the standard and following it carefully is the key to writing
portable code.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

P.S. Of course I am quite aware that substantive technical arguments can
be made regarding the superior portability of Ada over C from a language
point of view, but those arguments are well covered, and familiar. I wanted
to focus on a rather different aspect of portability, which is the role of
programmer attitude and knowledge.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <dewar.878897750@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>One real advantage of Ada over C is that Ada programmers tend to be at
>least somewhat familiar with the Ada standard, and can be expected to
>have a copy available, at least for reference purposes. The C standard
>is very much less well known among C programmers (you only have to look
>at some of the idiotic statements posted about C in the sizeof(int)
>discussion to see how many C programmers have strange ideas about C).
>Alternatively ask a roomful of Ada programmers how many have a copy of
>the standard available to them and routinely reference it. You will
>get essentially 100% yes response. Now ask the same question to a
>roomfull of C programmers.

I find this to also be true. And not only that, but some C programmers have
a definitely negative reaction against standards, an attitude with is
easily summarised as ``I've hacked this far without the ISO junk,
nobody is going to tell me what value main() should return.'' Or: ``I know how
my compiler works inside and out so don't tell me a[i] = i++ is incorrect!''

>(I know that Ada has inspired other standards groups to try to liberate
>their standards), but certainly earlier, the ANSI C standard was relatively
>unavailable, and expensive.

Nevertheless, there is no excuse that a C programmer can have for not being
familiar with at least the contents of the K&R2 text. Many are not.

Also, let's not forget another reason that you haven't mentioned: a flood
of incorrect textbooks produced about C. Popularity has its drawbacks.

Even though the standard was reproduced (save for a missing page or two: the twit
for instance forgot the page which tells you that footnotes, examples and
annexes aren't part of the text of the standard) in a relatively inexpensive
textbook known as _The Annotated ANSI C Standard_, due to the author's inane
annotations, the book has probably done more damage than good. 

>Another reason is the culture and circumstances. People tend to have learned
>C informally, and figure they know it without need to reference a standard.
>Indeed I often meet C programmers who don't really know what the ANSI
>standard for C *is*, let alone having a copy of it that they have read.

* Sigh *

>P.S. Of course I am quite aware that substantive technical arguments can
>be made regarding the superior portability of Ada over C from a language
>point of view, but those arguments are well covered, and familiar. I wanted
>to focus on a rather different aspect of portability, which is the role of
>programmer attitude and knowledge.

This is probably far more significant. C can allow all that wonderful
portability, but it's no good unless the programmer understands it
and gets it right. 
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Larry Elmore]

John Stevens wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
wrote:
>>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
>>computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's
>>a big, big selling point.
>>
>>However....
>>
>>C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare.
>>Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported
>>code cross-platform.
>
>Speaking (err, that is, writing! ;->).
>
>I have written code specifically designed to be ported across platforms.
>
>Note that most of the results of the GNU project have been ported across
>platforms as well, and lately the results have been quite good.

Well, when it's _designed_ that way from the beginning, that makes a
tremendous difference. When it's got to be done for some prize piece of work
that _wasn't_ written that way, but someone wants to port anyway, that's
something else entirely...

>The limiting factor in portability is almost always OS or library issues,
>not incompatibilities in the language itself.


How can you say that about C++, a language in evolution with different
compiler vendors supporting different features at different times?

>>In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems
>>I've had with any C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've
>>had with Ada crossplatform put together!
>
>Well, considering I was unable to port an Ada program to two of the five
>platforms I was targeting, while I was able to port a C program to all
five,
>I'd have to say that C is infinitely more portable.

Or you understand C a lot better than you do Ada...

>YMMV, and all that.
>
>>If you have an Ada compiler
>
>That *IF*, being the gotcha.
>
>Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?


Yes, for quite some time now. From Linux 1.2.13 and GNAT 3.05 to Linux
2.0.31 and GNAT 3.10p (including recompiling GNAT for my system). And what I
do at home on my P90 compiles and runs identically on Win95 PCs, a  DEC
Alpha running OSF1 v 4.0, and another older Alpha running VMS (all using
GNAT, from 3.07 to 3.09). Of course, no GUI involved, but that's a whole
different can of worms.

>>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)
>
>Note your choice of compiler.  This has a lot to do with it.
>
>Now, using GCC. . .

Do you always have control of what compiler you get to (have to) use?
Besides, "porting" a program can just as easily mean moving it from one
vendor's compiler to another on the same machine and OS because someone
higher up decided it would be "better", as it can mean moving it to
different machines and OSs.

Larry

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Dr E. Buxbaum]

John Stevens wrote:
> >If you have an Ada compiler
> 
> That *IF*, being the gotcha.
> Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?

I have not worked with it personally, but there is the Gnu Ada compiler
(Gnat). So in theory you should be able to run Ada on any system which
is supported by Gnu software, including Linux.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Russ Lyttle]

Dr E. Buxbaum wrote:
> 
> John Stevens wrote:
> > >If you have an Ada compiler
> >
> > That *IF*, being the gotcha.
> > Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?
> 
> I have not worked with it personally, but there is the Gnu Ada compiler
> (Gnat). So in theory you should be able to run Ada on any system which
> is supported by Gnu software, including Linux.
I run gnat on Linux. Have for about 3 years. The first years were not
the best, but it works just fine now.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Marc Wachowitz]

[Follow-up to comp.lang.ada]

jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John Stevens) wrote:
> But as suggested, I've never gotten it to work under Linux.  If anybody
> has, is the result "true" Ada (does the compiler compile any legal Ada
> program) and if so, to what standard does it comply?

GNAT compiles the complete language specified in the latest revision (1995)
of the ISO standard for Ada, including all the optional Annexes, and has
been formally validated on many platforms (I don't remember which ones).

In my experience (only in my free time at home), GNAT works very well.
The public binary distribution worked out of the box, but I also had no
problems at all recompiling it with itself (except the common gcc parts,
GNAT and its tools are written in Ada), on Linux/x86 version 2.0.11, with
recent library versions.

For information about GNAT see
http://www.gnat.com

For information about Ada in general (including the text of the standard) see
http://www.adahome.com

-- Marc Wachowitz <mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Jon S Anthony]

nospam@nospam (John Black) writes:

> 
> Then why do the want ads for C, C++ programmers could stretch from
> here to the moon, while Ada/Pascal programmers are nonexistent?  Like
> I said, if you program in Ada or Pascal, your best job is going to be
> taking orders at Red Lobster.

I have this overwhelming impression that you either are or soon will
be taking orders at Red Lobster or flippin' burgers at MuckDucks...
Certainly no one in their right mind would even consider hiring
someone like you for anything approaching an swe job or even a lowly
programmer job.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com>,
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>Then why do the want ads for C, C++ programmers could stretch from
>here to the moon, while Ada/Pascal programmers are nonexistent?  Like
>I said, if you program in Ada or Pascal, your best job is going to be
>taking orders at Red Lobster.

I see advertisements for development jobs involving Ada quite frequently.
They are usually good jobs too!

Most of the C++ programming jobs are ones that you wouldn't want to do.
Like developing some boring user interface crap to some dull database.
Ho hum.

Incidentally, there are lots of jobs out there for COBOL, PL/I and RPG
programming under MVS or AS/400. I guess that must really be ``happening''!
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Steve Ropa]

On 31 Oct 1997, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> In article <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com>,
> John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> >Then why do the want ads for C, C++ programmers could stretch from
> >here to the moon, while Ada/Pascal programmers are nonexistent?  Like
> >I said, if you program in Ada or Pascal, your best job is going to be
> >taking orders at Red Lobster.
> 
> I see advertisements for development jobs involving Ada quite frequently.
> They are usually good jobs too!
> 
> Most of the C++ programming jobs are ones that you wouldn't want to do.
> Like developing some boring user interface crap to some dull database.
> Ho hum.
> 
> Incidentally, there are lots of jobs out there for COBOL, PL/I and RPG
> programming under MVS or AS/400. I guess that must really be ``happening''!
> -- 
Don't fall into the John Black trap of overgeneralizing!  I am a C++
developer and when I was looking at jobs I saw a wide and varied
interesting and, yes, _REAL_ development jobs for C++.  I have used it for
telecommunications networks(long distance switching, etc...) and satellite
systems.  Call me a foolish optimist, but I think there are enough
interesting jobs out there for all of us, in many different languages.
But just in case, let me practice..."You want some fries to go with that?"
:-)

Steve

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Xu Yifeng]

John Black wrote:
> 
> ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
> wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
> have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
> only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
> learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Let Pascal and ADA exist in the world, otherwise, we won't feel C/C++
is better language.

Regards,
Xu Yifeng

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Scott Baierl]

Xu Yifeng wrote in message <3456A374.5BF2@public.hz.zj.cn>...
>John Black wrote:
>>
>> ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>> wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
>> have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
>> only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
>> learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.
>
>Let Pascal and ADA exist in the world, otherwise, we won't feel C/C++
>is better language.
>
>Regards,
>Xu Yifeng

Smart programmers spend their time learning programming languages that help
them solve the real-world problems in their particular application domain.

I know Pascal, C, C++, COBOL, Fortran, Java, Basic and several variants of
Assembler.  None of them is difficult to learn.  Each language has its
strong and weak points.  I happen to think that C++ is probably the most
versatile language of the bunch, which is why I use it more than the others.
Making statements as to the relative utility of langauges is a waste of
time.  Passing judgement about the intelligence of the users of such
languages is contemptible.

I don't think we need any more biggots.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Stevens]

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:11:26 -0600, Scott Baierl <baierls@schneider.com> wrote:
>
>Smart programmers spend their time learning programming languages that help
>them solve the real-world problems in their particular application domain.

Umm. . . no.  Smart programmers live, learn, and grow up to be sofware
engineers.  Software engineers live, learn, and grow up to be system
architects.  System architects live, learn, and grow up to be Computer
Scientists.

The constant in all this is to move from the concrete, to ever more
abstraction, to higher levels of complexity, and to greater numbers of
relationships and levels of relationship nesting.

A programmer applies his knowledge of C to write a sorting algorithm
for integers using a cook book algorithm.

A software engineer queries his architect, develops designs that match
the system architechture, can be maintained, are of good quality and
can be easily and effectively tested.  And then he probably helps
program.

An architect surveys his customers business area, looks at the current set
of problems to be solved, and the tasks that need doing, matches this
information against both mature and newer art to design a system that
can be used to solve immediate problems, streamline communications between
hitherto separate or even antagonistic sub-systems, provide business
level control and support, constrain, and assist in the adaption of that
system to unexpected events or changes.  And then he probably helps do some
of the engineering and coding.

A Computer scientist is capable of all of the above, including the
addition of questions of morality and societal impact, as well as
being able to produce new art to solve problems that have not yet become
part of existing business systems.

Analogy:  The architect is the guy standing at the top of the hill.  He
surveys this hill, decides that the inhabitants of this hill are
wasting time and energy by growing to much food, and that this is occuring
because to much of this food is being wasted.

He decides that what is needed is: a monetary system to make it easier to
track and control the flow of food, a communications system to allow the
inhabitants to organize the flow of food from places where it can be produced
to places where it cannot be, and a system of roads to do the actual
transportion of the food to different parts of the hill.

One of the engineers gets the task of solving part of the transportation
problem by being asked to design the necesary bridge to get across a
particularly troublesome ravine.  The architect tells the engineer
to make the bridge out of wood, a minimum of two lanes wide, and capable
of supporting up to x number of tons.

The engineer decides what kind of bridge would be easiest/best to build
to cross this particular ravine: suspension, trestle, etc., and draws up
the specific plans taking into account good engineering practice (water
sealing the wood, designing a safety factor (x tons + 30%, for example)
adding on whatever state-of-the art traffic flow control options are
needed, and available, and putting up signs that specify the weight limit
of the bridge.

The programmers are the guys carrying the planks, swinging hammers, drilling
holes and sawing wood.  The keep a weather eye on each plank, making sure
that it has no flaws, is of good quality, and properly sealed.  They also
make best effort to ensure that the holes drilled are correct in size and
placement, that the pieces are cut to best fit, etc.

All the while this is going on, the Scientist is also standing on top of
the hill, but instead of looking down at the hill beneath his feet, he is
looking out over the sea that surrounds the island this hill sits on,
dreaming of ways (flying, anyone?) to get from this hill, to another hill
on the next island.

Which is why arguing about which language is best is probably outside
the scope of most of our area of responsibility.  Most of us here are
not architects, or even engineers.

>I know Pascal, C, C++, COBOL, Fortran, Java, Basic and several variants of
>Assembler.  None of them is difficult to learn.  Each language has its
>strong and weak points.  I happen to think that C++ is probably the most
>versatile language of the bunch, which is why I use it more than the others.

Me, I think that combining languages gives you much more versatility.

John S.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[William & Melissa Thornton]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2C06438E1EDAEBDA78A851A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

VERY WELL SAID!

John Stevens wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:11:26 -0600, Scott Baierl <baierls@schneider.com>
 wrote:
> >
> >Smart programmers spend their time learning programming languages that help
> >them solve the real-world problems in their particular application domain.
>
> Umm. . . no.  Smart programmers live, learn, and grow up to be sofware
> engineers.  Software engineers live, learn, and grow up to be system
> architects.  System architects live, learn, and grow up to be Computer
> Scientists.
>
> The constant in all this is to move from the concrete, to ever more
> abstraction, to higher levels of complexity, and to greater numbers of
> relationships and levels of relationship nesting.
>
> A programmer applies his knowledge of C to write a sorting algorithm
> for integers using a cook book algorithm.
>
> A software engineer queries his architect, develops designs that match
> the system architechture, can be maintained, are of good quality and
> can be easily and effectively tested.  And then he probably helps
> program.
>
> An architect surveys his customers business area, looks at the current set
> of problems to be solved, and the tasks that need doing, matches this
> information against both mature and newer art to design a system that
> can be used to solve immediate problems, streamline communications between
> hitherto separate or even antagonistic sub-systems, provide business
> level control and support, constrain, and assist in the adaption of that
> system to unexpected events or changes.  And then he probably helps do some
> of the engineering and coding.
>
> A Computer scientist is capable of all of the above, including the
> addition of questions of morality and societal impact, as well as
> being able to produce new art to solve problems that have not yet become
> part of existing business systems.
>
> Analogy:  The architect is the guy standing at the top of the hill.  He
> surveys this hill, decides that the inhabitants of this hill are
> wasting time and energy by growing to much food, and that this is occuring
> because to much of this food is being wasted.
>
> He decides that what is needed is: a monetary system to make it easier to
> track and control the flow of food, a communications system to allow the
> inhabitants to organize the flow of food from places where it can be produced
> to places where it cannot be, and a system of roads to do the actual
> transportion of the food to different parts of the hill.
>
> One of the engineers gets the task of solving part of the transportation
> problem by being asked to design the necesary bridge to get across a
> particularly troublesome ravine.  The architect tells the engineer
> to make the bridge out of wood, a minimum of two lanes wide, and capable
> of supporting up to x number of tons.
>
> The engineer decides what kind of bridge would be easiest/best to build
> to cross this particular ravine: suspension, trestle, etc., and draws up
> the specific plans taking into account good engineering practice (water
> sealing the wood, designing a safety factor (x tons + 30%, for example)
> adding on whatever state-of-the art traffic flow control options are
> needed, and available, and putting up signs that specify the weight limit
> of the bridge.
>
> The programmers are the guys carrying the planks, swinging hammers, drilling
> holes and sawing wood.  The keep a weather eye on each plank, making sure
> that it has no flaws, is of good quality, and properly sealed.  They also
> make best effort to ensure that the holes drilled are correct in size and
> placement, that the pieces are cut to best fit, etc.
>
> All the while this is going on, the Scientist is also standing on top of
> the hill, but instead of looking down at the hill beneath his feet, he is
> looking out over the sea that surrounds the island this hill sits on,
> dreaming of ways (flying, anyone?) to get from this hill, to another hill
> on the next island.
>
> Which is why arguing about which language is best is probably outside
> the scope of most of our area of responsibility.  Most of us here are
> not architects, or even engineers.
>
> >I know Pascal, C, C++, COBOL, Fortran, Java, Basic and several variants of
> >Assembler.  None of them is difficult to learn.  Each language has its
> >strong and weak points.  I happen to think that C++ is probably the most
> >versatile language of the bunch, which is why I use it more than the others.
>
> Me, I think that combining languages gives you much more versatility.
>
> John S.

--
                ______________________________
               |                              |
               |  __________________________  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |  |#####             ######|  |
               |  |#####    press    ######|  |
               |  |#####   any key   ######|  |
               |  |#####             ######|  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |  |########################|  |
               |                        []    |
               |_____________     ____________|
                \_____|=+=|( _____ )|=+=|____/
                ____________|_____|__________
            _.-" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "-._
          ,"__ =-=-=-this is the any key-=-=-= __",
          |_  _________________________________  _|
            \___________________________________/
--------------2C06438E1EDAEBDA78A851A2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Thornton, William & Melissa
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:          vcard
fn:             William & Melissa Thornton
n:              Thornton;William & Melissa
adr:            103A Paisley Court;;;Bozeman;Montana;59715-7321;USA
email;internet: thornton@avicom.net
tel;home:       406-586-9166
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard


--------------2C06438E1EDAEBDA78A851A2--

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <slrn66258f.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:11:26 -0600, Scott Baierl <baierls@schneider.com> wrote:
>>
>>Smart programmers spend their time learning programming languages that help
>>them solve the real-world problems in their particular application domain.
>
>Umm. . . no.  Smart programmers live, learn, and grow up to be sofware
>engineers.  Software engineers live, learn, and grow up to be system
>architects.  System architects live, learn, and grow up to be Computer
>Scientists.

And computer scientists have children who become hackers... :)

>Which is why arguing about which language is best is probably outside
>the scope of most of our area of responsibility.  Most of us here are
>not architects, or even engineers.

Which is why we see arguments like ``but that doesn't matter because I
would never make that sort of error in my program''. :)
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com>,
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,

Nothing personal, but you must be seriously retarded if you find _Pascal_ hard
to learn. It's a teaching language for programming neophytes! 

What's more likely is not that you are retarded, but that you have never tried
learning Pascal or writing a program in it. It's even more likely that you are
too young to remember Pascal.

>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can

The TeX document processing system was written in Pascal.

Ada is used in all kinds of embedded systems and military applications. I know
at least one huge air traffic control system that is developed in Ada.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Rickard]

John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to
learn,
>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can

Apparently you are again one of the infamous stuck up C programmers
who think they are a programming god... well i got a newsflasg for
you... i own Turbo Pascal, Turbo C++ and of course QuickBasic...
i have/am successfully learning QuickBasic and Pascal... the c++ on
the other hand... blah... language is a matter of preference...
I like basic, pascal, and some scripting languages like Visual
DialogScript...
that is my preference... but do you see me in the C newsgroup saying
C and C++ SUCK. Basic, Pascal, and Script are the only languages you
need...
no you dont...
and about the zero applications...
my mother works for Noland co. a rather large HVAC Distributer
company(sells heating/cooling and bath stuff to small companies)
and i would have to inform you that every damn Load and Calculation
program they have(I am guessing(cant remember exact)about 30 programs
i have seen in use and read about) are all written in Pascal or other
Pascal-Like languages... the only thing on there computer even
written in C or C++ is the damn operating system...

oh heheh yeah this to:
Pascal is EASY to learn

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Timo Salmi]

In article <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com>,
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
:ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
:wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,

*** TROLL ALERT *** TROLL ALERT *** TROLL ALERT *** TROLL ALERT ***

*** IGNORE THE BAIT *** IGNORE THE BAIT *** IGNORE THE BAIT ***

   All the best, Timo

....................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi   Co-moderator of news:comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at ftp:// & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa
mailto:ts@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/>  ; FIN-65101,  Finland

Spam foiling in effect.  My email filter autoresponder will return a
required email password to users not yet in the privileges database.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[NOSPAM_f93-eaa]

John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
>only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
>learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Are you kidding?!? One of Pascal:s strengths is that the language
ENFORCES sound programming habits. C++, on the other hand, is based
on the philosophy that no programming paradigm is better than another.
C++ perhaps has the advantage of being more important than Pascal in 
the industry, but that is changing more and more when people realize 
that other languages often make it possible to deliver code faster, 
code that has fewer bugs and is easier to maintain and extend.  

I like Java, Pascal and Eiffel.

Just my two cents...

-- 

Erik Alapaeae
email: NOSPAM_f93-eaa@sm.luth.se 

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Dr E. Buxbaum]

John Black wrote:
> 
> ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
> wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
> have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
> only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
> learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

The Modula-3 FAQ reports an interesting experiment: Students of a
programming class were given an assignment to be completed by a
specified date. They were given the choice of 3 implementation
languages: Modula-3, Borland Pascal and C++. Modula-3 was the recomended
language, and most of the programming novices choose that. All students
which choose C++ had previous knowledge of this language and rated
themselfs as "experienced programmers".

The results were as follows: From the students who choose Modula-3, 4
out of 5 completed their assignment on time. With Borland Pascal, 2 out
of 3 managed to do this. From the students using C++, none did. Even
after been given an extension to complete their project, these students
delivered code of inferior quality compared to those using Modula and
Pascal.

In other words: Novices using Modula produced better code quicker, than
"experienced programmers" using C++!

On the jobs issue, it is certainly true that there are plenty of jobs
for C and C++ programmers. However, there are also lots of jobs for
people using Borland Pascal or Delphi, and if you want to do anything
for the US goverment, than you better know your Ada. Few people would
dare to programm mission critical applications (like nuclear power plant
or weapons system control software) in C, objective C or C++, and I
would not expect Java to turn out any different.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Steve Ropa]

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Dr E. Buxbaum wrote:

> The Modula-3 FAQ reports an interesting experiment: Students of a
> programming class were given an assignment to be completed by a
> specified date. They were given the choice of 3 implementation
> languages: Modula-3, Borland Pascal and C++. Modula-3 was the recomended
> language, and most of the programming novices choose that. All students
> which choose C++ had previous knowledge of this language and rated
> themselfs as "experienced programmers".
> 
> The results were as follows: From the students who choose Modula-3, 4
> out of 5 completed their assignment on time. With Borland Pascal, 2 out
> of 3 managed to do this. From the students using C++, none did. Even
> after been given an extension to complete their project, these students
> delivered code of inferior quality compared to those using Modula and
> Pascal.
> 
> In other words: Novices using Modula produced better code quicker, than
> "experienced programmers" using C++!
> 
> On the jobs issue, it is certainly true that there are plenty of jobs
> for C and C++ programmers. However, there are also lots of jobs for
> people using Borland Pascal or Delphi, and if you want to do anything
> for the US goverment, than you better know your Ada. Few people would
> dare to programm mission critical applications (like nuclear power plant
> or weapons system control software) in C, objective C or C++, and I
> would not expect Java to turn out any different.

Your example is fascinating.  I wonder, though how "experienced" those C++
programmers were.  Many people seem to think that just because they can
run a couple of wizards, they are C++ programmers.  The end result is that
they don't learn the language, and are incapable of producing a high
quality product, on time or otherwise.

As far as daring to use C or C++ for mission critical systems, I would
point out that the majority of the telecommunications systems in the world
are running on top of Unix, which as we all know is written in C.  I
myself(along with a half dozen other team members) have written several
long distance Network Management systems in C++.  My team is about to
start on a Satellite communications system in C++.  Oddly, it is replacing
a system written in Ada.  This is not to put down Ada, as I feel every
language has its place.  Just don't rule out the stability and reliability
of C or C++.

Steve

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971030093508.12308F-100000@flatland.dimensional.com>,
Steve Ropa  <theropas@dimensional.com> wrote:
>As far as daring to use C or C++ for mission critical systems, I would
>point out that the majority of the telecommunications systems in the world
>are running on top of Unix, which as we all know is written in C.  I
>myself(along with a half dozen other team members) have written several
>long distance Network Management systems in C++.  My team is about to
>start on a Satellite communications system in C++.  Oddly, it is replacing
>a system written in Ada.  This is not to put down Ada, as I feel every
>language has its place.  Just don't rule out the stability and reliability
>of C or C++.

A failure in a network management system doesn't actually amount to a real
catastrophy. It just means that you are perhaps not getting timely visibility
of some operational measurements or alarms, or an interruption in your ability
to control network elements. Only if such a condition is prolonged can it lead
to a failure to diagnose and possibly correct some fault in the network, such
as congestion due to to out of service units.

Telecommunication management software is large and complex, but not safety
critical, and quasi-real-time at best. Shut-down software for a nuclear reactor
may be less complex, but requires much more verification.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[John Stevens]

On 30 Oct 1997 13:13:54 -0800, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@helios.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>Telecommunication management software is large and complex, but not safety
>critical,

"HELLO!!??? 911??!!  Damn, the software controlling the switch crashed
again!" ;->

>and quasi-real-time at best. Shut-down software for a nuclear reactor
>may be less complex, but requires much more verification.

But in the end, it is the programmer and the quality assurance procedures
that make the difference, not language choice.

John S.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <slrn6620l9.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 1997 13:13:54 -0800, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@helios.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>>Telecommunication management software is large and complex, but not safety
>>critical,
>
>"HELLO!!??? 911??!!  Damn, the software controlling the switch crashed
>again!" ;->

Embedded software which controls switches is distinct from TMN. TMN typically
runs on workstations and gives operators a map with blinking lights which
enables them to identify crises on the network and take action. The software
works essentially by monitoring the network elements for traffic reports and
alarms, and it not only identifies acute crises but can provide statistics
which can assist with planning future network expansion. That's sort of the
general thing that I would understand as ``telecommunication network
management''.

If network management fails, your call to 911 might not go through as a result
of the failure of the telco to identify and correct network problems such as
congestion or out of service trunks, or some failure in the signalling network,
etc, not as a direct result of the failure of the software.

>>and quasi-real-time at best. Shut-down software for a nuclear reactor
>>may be less complex, but requires much more verification.
>
>But in the end, it is the programmer and the quality assurance procedures
>that make the difference, not language choice.

If there is such thing as THE difference rather than a whole bunch of 
smaller differences. :) The question is the extent to which the language
choice plays a role.
-- 
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
	-- Blair P. Houghton

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Steve Ropa]

On 6 Nov 1997, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> In article <slrn6620l9.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:
> >On 30 Oct 1997 13:13:54 -0800, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@helios.crest.nt.com> wrote:
> >>Telecommunication management software is large and complex, but not safety
> >>critical,
> >
> >"HELLO!!??? 911??!!  Damn, the software controlling the switch crashed
> >again!" ;->
> 
> Embedded software which controls switches is distinct from TMN. TMN typically
> runs on workstations and gives operators a map with blinking lights which
> enables them to identify crises on the network and take action. The software
> works essentially by monitoring the network elements for traffic reports and
> alarms, and it not only identifies acute crises but can provide statistics
> which can assist with planning future network expansion. That's sort of the
> general thing that I would understand as ``telecommunication network
> management''.
> 
Actually, I need to point out that all alarms(fiber cut, huge BER, etc)
are reported to the NMS.  In one system we did, that meant over 10,000
alarms per second, and yes that becomes safety critical.  And actually the
software is not just meant for monitoring.  It will also take some of the
actions necessary to correct these alarms(emergency cutover, cross
connect, etc.)

> If network management fails, your call to 911 might not go through as a result
> of the failure of the telco to identify and correct network problems such as
> congestion or out of service trunks, or some failure in the signalling network,
> etc, not as a direct result of the failure of the software.
> 
If some guy accidentally slices my fiber(self healing rings
notwithstanding) and I don't react to it by rerouting the traffic, the 911
call does not go through, and people die. 

> >>and quasi-real-time at best. Shut-down software for a nuclear reactor
> >>may be less complex, but requires much more verification.
> >
I of course would not argue with that.  My point is that there are lots of
mission critical applications, and just because it may not seem that way
at first glance, if the customer feels it is...it is.  By the way, I have
worked with several SONET switches, and their embedded software is in C++!
I am not claiming that all, or even most switches are C++, just some of
the ones I worked with.  And yes, they are currently in the field.

> >But in the end, it is the programmer and the quality assurance procedures
> >that make the difference, not language choice.
> 
> If there is such thing as THE difference rather than a whole bunch of 
> smaller differences. :) The question is the extent to which the language
> choice plays a role.

The ability of the programmer to chose the right language for his/her
problem domain cetainly plays a role.  I think yoiu are right though,
there are really a lot of small roles that make up a good programmer.


Steve

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Craig Franck]

kaz@helios.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>In article <slrn6620l9.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>John Stevens <jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov> wrote:
>>On 30 Oct 1997 13:13:54 -0800, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@helios.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>>>Telecommunication management software is large and complex, but not safety
>>>critical,
>>
>>"HELLO!!??? 911??!!  Damn, the software controlling the switch crashed
>>again!" ;->

>If network management fails, your call to 911 might not go through as a result
>of the failure of the telco to identify and correct network problems such as
>congestion or out of service trunks, or some failure in the signalling network,
>etc, not as a direct result of the failure of the software.

It's true the vast majority of telco failures are hardware faults, but 
that van der Linden fellow detailed an instance when a bug in a C program
(something to do with a switch statement) caused AT&T's long distance 
network to become completely unstable, like it had never done before.

You are correct it's up to the software to deal gracefully with resource
starvation and that normally comes from a hardware failure. And when was 
the last time you heard an all circuits busy tone sequence? 

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several
days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Corey Barcus]

John Black wrote:

> ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
> wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
> have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
> only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
> learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

This is total hyperbole. Ada is used heavily in the US DoD, probably many
other places. Pascal has its current incarnation in a product called
Delphi (from Borland of course) that is a very good tool for building
Windows applications.

Why not dispense with this ignorant and inflamatory position? Instead ask
others if Ada is indeed difficult to learn as you suspect (coming from a
C/C++/Java background I found it somewhat confusing), where it's used,
where's Pascal used, etc. I'm sure advocates of these other languages
would be more than happy to give you answers.

It may very well be that C/C++/Java is best suited for what you endeavor
to do. It would be well to know that there are many ways to program and
some languages are much better suited to particular problems. There are
reasons why languages like Forth, ML, Prolog, Smalltalk, Lisp, etc exist.
If you want to learn something, it's better to try and formulate a
question.

--
Corey Barcus
Simpler Software
corey@simplersw.com

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Scott A. Moore]

This subject is a complete waste of time, and completely off topic to
comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.
Would people who are polite please remove that newsgroup from the
reply list ?

                                                   Thanks in advance

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Scott A. Moore wrote:
> 
> This subject is a complete waste of time, and completely off topic to
> comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.
> Would people who are polite please remove that newsgroup from the
> reply list ?

No, people who are polite will leave the Newsgroups header alone. If you
feel that responses to your article belong somewhere else, use
Followup-To, but trimming the Newsgroups in your response is rude.

-- 

                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE

The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Scott A. Moore]

In article <345A5E44.5946@gsg.eds.com>, nospam@gsg.eds.com says...
>
>Scott A. Moore wrote:
>> 
>> This subject is a complete waste of time, and completely off topic to
>> comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.
>> Would people who are polite please remove that newsgroup from the
>> reply list ?
>
>No, people who are polite will leave the Newsgroups header alone. If you
>feel that responses to your article belong somewhere else, use
>Followup-To, but trimming the Newsgroups in your response is rude.
>

What is RUDE is to send your mail to newsgroups UNRELATED to the topic
at hand. The original poster made this mistake. Everyone who follows is
simply repeating this mistake.
This discussion is about ADVOCACY and POLITICS. There is a place
for these discussions: either the advocacy or the misc sections.
comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso is a technical discussion newsgroup. It is already
trashed with stupid ads and people confused about what ansi-iso pascal
IS. This nonsense only makes it worse. PLEASE STOP.

                                               [sam]

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Scott A. Moore wrote:
 
> What is RUDE is to send your mail to newsgroups UNRELATED to the topic
> at hand. The original poster made this mistake. Everyone who follows is
> simply repeating this mistake.

While the original cross posting was a violation of netiquette, the
proper response is to set the followup to where it belongs, not to just
trim the newsgroups list.

> This discussion is about ADVOCACY and POLITICS. 

Then why are you posting in comp.lang.ada? By *your* reasoning you
should have posted only to the advocacy groups, e.g.,
comp.lang.java.advocacy.

-- 

                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE

The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Timo Salmi]

In article <345A5E44.5946@gsg.eds.com>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <nospam@gsg.eds.com> wrote:
:Scott A. Moore wrote:
:> This subject is a complete waste of time, and completely off topic to
:> comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso.
:> Would people who are polite please remove that newsgroup from the
:> reply list ?
:
:No, people who are polite will leave the Newsgroups header alone. If you
:feel that responses to your article belong somewhere else, use
:Followup-To, but trimming the Newsgroups in your response is rude.

Dear Shmuel,

In accordance to the common netiquette and elementary newsgroup
courtesy what is "rude" here is the original extensive, crossposting
of the troll/flame bait (not Sam nor you) to off-topic newsgroups.
Unfortunately, there always is a such number of unexperienced
readers who fall for these ploys, and the others will have to
weather it, or use killfiles until the debacle subsides.

   All the best, Timo

....................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi   Co-moderator of news:comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at ftp:// & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa
mailto:ts@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/>  ; FIN-65101,  Finland

Spam foiling in effect.  My email filter autoresponder will return a
required email password to users not yet in the privileges database.

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Gary A. Wiltshire]

nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:

>ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
>wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
>have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
>only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
>learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Does your daddy know that you're using his computer?

BTW, you're ugly and your mommy dresses you funny.

   --- Gary Wiltshire

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Gary A. Wiltshire]

"Oliver Batchelor" <batch@netaccess.co.nz> wrote:
.....
>Shut up
.....


Yes, Ma'am!


   --- Gary Wiltshire

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Christopher Eltschka]

John Black wrote:
> 
> ADA and Pascal are two of the most useless inventions Man has ever
> wasted space on this planet with.  These languages are hard to learn,
> have zero applications, and people who only know these languages can
> only find jobs at Taco Bell!  Smart programmers spend their time
> learning only C, C++, and Java in that order.

Sorry, I have to disagree very much.

1. Ada and Pascal are not useless. You might f.ex. think that space
   rockets are useless; but there's probably a good reason they are
   programmed in Ada, and not in C...

2. Smart programmers learn Pascal first (because then they learn
   *programming*, not hacking). Next they go on to C++, as doing
   C first would be a waste of time (and learning C++ first will
   make you a better C programmer later, as well). Then they have
   a look at other languages (functional, logical, ...) so they
   get used to other paradigms as well. And they learn some
   Assembler, so they have a clue about what's going on beyond
   the surface of their programming language.
   Someone who doesn't want to know anything but C, C++ and Java
   can't be called a smart programmer (s.o. who only wants to know
   about Pascal can't be called one, as well, though).

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Samuel T. Harris]

John Stevens wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:42:42 -0800, Dr E. Buxbaum <EB15@le.ac.uk> wrote:
> >John Stevens wrote:
> >> >If you have an Ada compiler
> >>
> >> That *IF*, being the gotcha.
> >> Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?
> >
> >I have not worked with it personally, but there is the Gnu Ada compiler
> >(Gnat). So in theory you should be able to run Ada on any system which
> >is supported by Gnu software, including Linux.
> 
> But as suggested, I've never gotten it to work under Linux.  If anybody
> has, is the result "true" Ada (does the compiler compile any legal Ada
> program) and if so, to what standard does it comply?
> 
> John S.

Please clarify that last question as "to what standard does it comply?".

That last question is confusing. Accepted terminology implies
Ada means Ada 95 and Ada 83 is listed explicitly. Do you mean
the Ada 83 standard vs the Ada 95 standard? If so, that is a
valid point, but irrelevent to the previous question which
concerned GNAT on Linux which is an Ada 95 compiler. Although
it does have a Ada 83 compatibility switch, that does not make
it an Ada 83 compiler.

Do you mean which Ada 95 standard? There is only one Ada 95
standard. It does have some annexes which are optional and
"extend" the standard into specific application domains.
Again, GNAT supports all the annexes and Robert Dewar delights
in pointing this out frequently (and well deservedly so).

-- 
Samuel T. Harris, Senior Engineer
Hughes Training, Inc. - Houston Operations
2224 Bay Area Blvd. Houston, TX 77058-2099
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Larry Elmore]

John Stevens wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:42:42 -0800, Dr E. Buxbaum <EB15@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>>John Stevens wrote:

>>
>>> Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box?
>>
>>I have not worked with it personally, but there is the Gnu Ada compiler
>>(Gnat). So in theory you should be able to run Ada on any system which
>>is supported by Gnu software, including Linux.
>
>But as suggested, I've never gotten it to work under Linux.  If anybody
>has, is the result "true" Ada (does the compiler compile any legal Ada
>program) and if so, to what standard does it comply?

Have you tried this recently? What kernel version of Linux? Did you have the
specified libc version or higher? You also need the proper version of ld and
make (that is to say, one of the latest versions) if you're going to build
GNAT from source. All of this is in the docs that come with GNAT.

If you have the proper setup, getting the binary distribution to run on
Linux is easy. Just unpack it and follow the directions. If you have files
in non-standard locations, that can present problems, though.

If you want to build GNAT from source, you still need to get and install the
binary distribution because GNAT is written in Ada 95 and one must have a
working Ada 95 compiler to compile the GNAT source. If megabytes of compiler
source code (in legal Ada 95) isn't a good test of whether a compiler
generates good code or not, I'm not sure what would be... :)  (BTW, the GNAT
source code can be quite educational to go through)

I built GNAT 3.10p from source using the 3.10p binary and it worked like a
charm once I figured out (with some help from this newsgroup) that one must
build and install an Ada-aware gcc (from patched gcc source code) 'C'
compiler, then use _that_ to build and install GNAT and 'C' and C++ and
whatever else you want to use that uses gcc as the back-end. The docs aren't
real explicit on that point, though it seems rather obvious in hindsight.

GNAT is a validated Ada 95 compiler. I'm not at all sure, but I think it
still might be the _only_ validated Ada 95 compiler available. Maybe that's
changed recently, though. There's some bugs, of course, but if you know of a
compiler of any language that is certified bug-free, I'd sure like to know
where to get it! :)

Larry

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Jon S Anthony]

"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:

> GNAT is a validated Ada 95 compiler. I'm not at all sure, but I
> think it still might be the _only_ validated Ada 95 compiler
> available. Maybe that's changed recently, though.

Not for some time.  Actually the very first validated Ada95 compiler
was one from Intermetric's which used their nifty AdaMagic FE.

I think I saw somewhere that there were around 40 or so validated
compilers for Ada95 at this time.  Certainly ObjectAda from Aonix is
validated and includes the "big 4" annexes.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Craig Franck]

Jon S Anthony <jsa@synquiry.com> wrote:
>"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:
>
>> GNAT is a validated Ada 95 compiler. I'm not at all sure, but I
>> think it still might be the _only_ validated Ada 95 compiler
>> available. Maybe that's changed recently, though.
>
>Not for some time.  Actually the very first validated Ada95 compiler
>was one from Intermetric's which used their nifty AdaMagic FE.
>
>I think I saw somewhere that there were around 40 or so validated
>compilers for Ada95 at this time.  Certainly ObjectAda from Aonix is
>validated and includes the "big 4" annexes.

There is a version of that compiler for Windows bundled with the book
"Ada 95 For C and C++ Programmers" by Simon Johnston, from Add-Wes.

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several
days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!!

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96]

Mike Copeland <mrcope@PRIMENET.COM> writes:
>  1. The portability issue.  C/C++ are basically portable across
>platforms, and this is an extremely important issue to corporate
>thinking.  It's more important to the executives/decision makers of most
>companies that their key applications can be moved to other vendor's
>hardware when financial issues force such switches, than to have
>implementation languages which their programmers like and find easy to
>learn.
    This seems to be misinformation. C was originally invented as a
    systems programming language and for years had no standard at all.
    Implementations varied quite a bit and many of the things that
    were legal to do (and frequently done) were notoriously
    non-portable. From practical experience in porting C programs
    (albeit, not in the last couple of years) I can attest to the fact
    that it is far more work than porting an equivalent Ada program.
    If anybody considers C (and by extension C++) to be "portable"
    then they ought to be extremely impressed with Ada since it is
    much more rigorous in its language definition and designed with
    portability as one of its major objectives.

>  2. Pascal and Ada (which is often called a highly enriched Pascal)
>weren't designed as application development vehicles - whereas C/C++
>were.  Pascal was invented as a teaching tool for structured and module
<snip>
    As stated above. C was developed as a systems programming language
    which has dramatically different requirements from an applications
    programming language. Arguably, C++ might have been oriented more
    towards applications, but it's roots in C means its dragging along
    many characteristics aimed at systems programming.

>   Ada, OTOH, was designed for implementation of secure and fail-safe
>systems for the Government.  It was based on Pascal concepts (very strong
>typing, modularity, consistency, etc.), but was taken much farther than
>was useful to the general world.  Learning Ada should be considered an
>educational experience, at best, because no one uses it.  And I agree
>it's very hard to learn and work with, even coming from a Pascal
>background.  Nonetheless, Ada provides some interesting and useful things
>for any serious programmer to think about and use in his/her work.
>
    I'd beg to differ on the "no one uses it" part of this statement.
    While it seems obvious that other languages may be more widely
    used than Ada, it is not as if there is no Ada programming going
    on in the real world. It is a non-trivial market and I don't
    expect it will disappear any time soon.

    Hard to learn? Sure - there's features in the language that deal
    with difficult concepts, such as multitasking/concurrency,
    numerical analysis, et cetera. When you deal with difficult
    concepts, you're going to find it difficult to learn. But I teach
    an "Intro to Ada" in-house course aimed at engineers with a
    familarity with other languages and it's not hard at all getting
    them up to speed with a Pascal-like subset of the features.

    The only area that gets difficult is teaching the use of the
    generic I/O packages. (Forces you to discuss generic instantiation
    early on and this always seems to be a difficult concept to get
    across until some experience with the language is gained.) Text_IO
    can be turgid, but by sticking to Put_Line and 'Image (EVERYTHING
    ought to have a 'Image attribute!!!) you can get folks rolling on
    basic terminal I/O without any more complication than trying to
    teach the "printf" calls (and all its variants) in C.

    The thing that bothers me about the "Hard To Learn" falacy is that
    when you dig into it a little you tend to discover that it is a
    variation of "It's not what I already know, so it's 'Hard To
    Learn'" or "I'm used to a language that has no advanced features
    so I find it 'Hard To Learn' a language that does." You can learn
    the Pascal-like subset of Ada with no more difficulty than you
    would experience learning Pascal - and all learning requires
    effort and therefore, by definition is not going to be easy. (If
    it were easy, everybody would do it.) When you've mastered the
    Pascal-like subset, you can gradually add on features just like
    you learned the more advanced, arcane, dark features of C. And no
    language design is *ever* going to make concepts like concurrency
    "simple" so you're going to have to bite the bullet and learn the
    theory behind the advanced features before the features themselves
    are going to make sense.

    Language wars are futile, like most wars are, so we shouldn't
    ought to start one. I don't mean to give the impression that
    there's something wrong with preferring one language over another.
    There's nothing wrong with saying "This is the language I know and
    am comfortable with, so that's what I use to get my job done." But
    in criticizing a language, there needs to be some emphasis on
    avoiding vague generalities or subjective judgments.

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer     Voice:     561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-96, P.O.B. 109600  Fax:       561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600                  Internet:  CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
    "Having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as
    of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
        --  G.K. Chesterton
===============================================================================