From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-02 06:16:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: 2 May 2003 06:16:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0305020516.bdba239@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051881368 6905 127.0.0.1 (2 May 2003 13:16:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 May 2003 13:16:08 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63039 comp.object:62539 comp.lang.ada:36853 misc.misc:13896 Date: 2003-05-02T13:16:08+00:00 List-Id: "James S. Rogers" wrote in message news:... > "soft-eng" wrote in message > news:9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com... > > mcq95@earthlink.net (Marc A. Criley) wrote in message > news:<254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com>... > > > > Yes, Ada extended Pascal very strongly in this regards, > > without any particular consideration of how useful > > these extensions would actually turn out to be. > > Nonsense. The Ada designers knew very well how useful those > extensions would turn out to be. After all, Ada was not designed So why do you think Ada failed? > > Like I said, Ada has amazing amounts of itsy-bitsy stuff. > > Now which of these features, if missing, would take you > > more than a minor effort to provide yourself? If and > > when necessary, rather than present by default all the time? > > So, are you arguing against the sizeof operator in C and C++? > Are you arguing against the Length field of an Java array? > Are you arguing against C pointer arithmetic? > > What feature of a high level language cannot be created with an > individual effort from an assembler programmer? Obviously, there is a middle ground. If one feature in a language is good, ten features aren't ten times as good. (Which I stated before in another form, but apparently it is hard to understand.) > Absolutely wrong. Ada did not extend Pascal. It simply belongs to > the same syntax family, which is not rooted in Pascal. Algol came > long before Pascal. I suppose you could make that point theoretically. But at the time Ada came out, Pascal was very popular. > There is nothing natural about the development of a language. Classes > belonged to C++ from the very beginning. The same is true of Java. > Those languages are not evolutionary developments. They were discrete Ideas evolve -- someone sees something working in Simula, thinks about it, and comes up with a new variation of the idea. The new variation might work or not work. It competes against other new variations... Same way, there exists a type system in C, and it absolutely *has* to be kept. But it needs fixing. So ideas are kicked around how to fix it without breaking too much. That's what I meant by "natural development". > Java is not an evolved C++. The design goals of the two languages are Java takes a lot of ideas from C++. > far different. C++, despite its name, is not merely a superset of C. > If it were the C++ standard would need to subsume the C standard. > It does not. The C++ standard exists independent of the C standard. > > Your basic assumptions are invalid. This forces your conclusions to be > invalid also. > > Jim Rogers