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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc1b2,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gidfc1b2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,21674edb667218cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 12:35:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada (was Rival JSF teams fly final STOVL flights with flair, highlight strengths) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:24:26 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9ks3lb$lkk$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <945d79ff.0107312306.4665e855@posting.google.com> <3b67fd90_2@binarykiller.newsgroups.com> <421a7.235$0e7.91390140@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com> <3B6A1179.26C1C04@home.com> <3B6A15C3.8B3A9277@home.com> <3B6F73F9.15E98173@gte.net> <9krue8$5v03n$1@ID-52877.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997298667 22164 136.170.200.133 (8 Aug 2001 19:24:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2001 19:24:27 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com rec.aviation.military:47302 rec.aviation.military.naval:11621 comp.lang.ada:11638 Date: 2001-08-08T19:24:27+00:00 List-Id: C may be a gold-plated portable assembly language, but I don't think its quite as wonderful as Ada is for low-level interaction with the hardware. To illustrate - try building a struct in which you can control the representation as exactly as you can build an Ada record for the same job. C leaves too many "implementation defined" behaviors and/or simply doesn't give you control over representation. It ends up a lot easier in Ada. And for all of C's bit-twiddling capabilities (shifting, and/or ops, etc.) Ada has exact parallels, so I just don't see it as having an advantage. (And I've written low-level stuff in both languages, so I don't think there is any lack of experience with either one coloring my judgement.) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message news:9krue8$5v03n$1@ID-52877.news.dfncis.de... > > The best excuse for using C/C++ is that, as C is basically > a gold-plated assembler, it is convenient for implementing > low-level interactions with hardware. But for a large and > mission-critical application it too unsafe. You never know > *for sure* that it isn't going to set its pointers to the wrong > address and crash the entire environment. And the aircraft > with it. >