Re: Is Ada preferred over C/C++ for the realtime domain?

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:a9n4sa$dfj$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Pat Rogers" <rogers@gnat.com> writes:
>
> >This is a troll, right?  Does anyone really still believe that Ada (either
> >version) was designed by a committee?  Both were designed by small design
> >teams, each with a very strong leader.  Oh, and each team had a great deal
> >of experience developing large systems, as well as designing languages.
>
> Oh Pat, stop trolling yourself.  Pat ignores the committee-based
> history of Ada, which started out with the "Strawman" requirements
> specification, then "Woodenman", "Tinman", "Ironman", and "Steelman"
> and as a result, ADA.

OK, first things first:  It is "Ada", the name of a person.  If you don't know
that -- the very first thing that anybody knows about the language -- then you
don't know zilch about it.  It is a trivial issue, but it is a very good
tripwire.

Second, are you saying you cannot distinguish between phases of development?
Certainly the requirements was done by a commitee -- who said they weren't?  The
language design was done by a different group -- a team. The revision design was
also done by a team.  Those are both facts.  You don't have to like it.

> The language ADA was defined in the 1970's,
> when nobody have a clear idea of what was essential in a language, and
> what could be deferred to a software library.
>
> So, one of the most unique things about the ADA language is : It's the
> only language that has had a sex change.

Neither of us have any idea what you're talking about.


> The history of ADA is riddled with blunders and excessive
> overcomplexity.  Rabid Adaphiles try to hide all of the embarassing
> details.  Here are just a few.  Since it was designed in total vacuum,
> nobody even bothered to test the grammer and it was found not to be
> LALR(1).  This one mistake contributed to the extremely embarassing
> fact that the first compiler for the full language took 4 years to
> develop and it was written in ML and compiled 1 line per minute.
>
>
> I could go on but its too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

Why?  You haven't said anything right yet.  It wasn't four years, it wasn't ML
(it was SETL), and it wasn't 1 line per minute.  I used Ada compilers well
before the one you're thinking of.

<snip>
> Another thing to care about is that the syntax and semantics of the
> language does not force a person into a certain programming style, and

Ada does not force anything.  What nonsense.

> does not discourage the use of fundamental arithmatic operations (such
> as shifts and pointer increment/decrement) that exist on all modern
> computers.

What are you talking about?

> In this respect, and for modern systems programming, C
> still kicks the ass of C++ and ADA.

Unsupported rubbish.

You're information is both wrong and out of date.