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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,75913b4078315ff6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,8dbb0b6ec705465a X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-18 19:14:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Is Ada preferred over C/C++ for the realtime domain? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.177.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1019182433 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:13:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:13:53 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: [[PA@SJGTZYQBQXYQ[OD]_HBWB]^PCPDLXUNNHPHBATBTSUBYFWEAE[YJLYPIWKHTFCMZKVMB^[Z^DOBRVVMOSPFHNSYXVDIE@X\BUC@GTSX@DL^GKFFHQCCE\G[JJBMYDYIJCZM@AY]GNGPJD]YNNW\GSX^GSCKHA[]@CCB\[@LATPD\L@J\\PF]VR[QPJN Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:13:53 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.realtime:5264 comp.lang.ada:22764 Date: 2002-04-19T02:13:53+00:00 List-Id: "Donald Gillies" wrote in message news:a9n4sa$dfj$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca... > "Pat Rogers" 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. > 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.