From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Dec 92 14:37:29 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu
!think.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!linus!linus.mitre.org!news!emery@ucbvax.Berkeley.E
DU  (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Ada vs. C/C++...
Message-ID: <EMERY.92Dec8093729@dr_no.mitre.org>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I used to read comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.  For a while, I got a
big kick out of comp.lang.c++ and their discussion of standardization
issues, which the Ada community addressed and (mostly) resolved a long
time ago.  I even posted to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ once or
twice.  (The latter was during a discussion of what is known in Ada as
"elaboration".  The people in c.l.c++ were struggling to understand
the concept, as it's implicit, rather than explicit, in the language.)
But, I don't want to become the C/C++ equivalent of people like Ted
Holden and Fred McCall and start or contribute to comp.lang.jihad.

In other newsgroups (comp.lang.modula-3, comp.realtime and comp.object
for instance), I've posted occasional messages about Ada experiences,
when relevant.  Both c.l.mod-3 and c.obj manage to avoid religious
wars.  

But, as I've pointed out on comp.lang.ada, I've found the C community
disturbingly narrow with respect to other languages.  This has
occasionally spilled over to other newsgroups, such as
comp.infosystems, when someone posts a question on COBOL (clearly
within focus), and 3 or 4 C hackers jump up and say "Don't use COBOL,
it's crap.  Use C instead."  

I've enjoyed watching the C community struggle with understanding
threads and the impact of concurrency on their programs.  In
particular, I've watched people spend lots of time discussing race
conditions, trying to find the right terms.  What's so 'funny' about
this is that most any Ada programmer who's had a basic introduction to
tasking can explain a race condition in about 20 lines of Ada.  It
goes back to the Whorf hypothesis about language and expressability.
But, when I've pointed to Ada as either a language for discussing
concurrency issues (in the abstract), or as a basis of (rather
significant) experience with concurrency (both user-side and
implementor-side), I've been either laughted at or abused, or told
"Ada has no relevance to C, and Ada tasks have no relevance to C
Threads, which are clearly superior."  

So, to answer your question, the reason I don't post to comp.lang.c or
comp.lang.c++ is simple.  I don't need the abuse from the majority of
people who read such groups.  The benefit to the minority of
open-minded people isn't worth the hasssle of dealing with all the
flames.  

During the comp.lang.ada holy wars, I've tried to keep my postings
based on my experiences, and I've tried to explain/justify my
conclusions based on my experiences.  Fred McCall's recent postings
show how the discussion can degenerate into personal ad-hominem
attacks.    

What I don't understand is why people like McCall and Holden bother to
read comp.lang.ada.  Maybe they like to see their name in "electronic
print".  It's clear that they aren't reading to learn anything about
Ada; their minds are already made up on this topic.

				dave