Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> wrote:
> 
> >  C++ and C are probably fine for certain classes of problems, but they
> >  are certainly archaic when compared to the progress being made in
> >  the world of programming languages. And I do not refer only to Ada in
> >  that last sentence.  Eiffel also comes to mind as a preferred
> >  alternative to C++.
> 
> 
> I agree with that, if you include PC programming as "a certain class of 
> problems". Most PC OS's are written in C/C++. It makes sense that
> applications would then be coded in C/C++ as well. Pascal has more 

Well you didn't say "should", so I suppose this really just means that
coding apps in C/C++ on such platforms makes more or less the same amount
of sense as coding them in anything else, i.e., the point is irrelevant.
If you did mean "should", you should rethink the issue.


> support than Ada does in this area. I don't know of a vendor supporting
> those platforms in Ada as well as is done with C/C++. So you go with
> C/C++ due to the quality of the impementation, not the language.

Oh, I dunno about that.  Check out the Tomson ObjectAda offering.


> I would also like to point out that technical superiority is not always
> a good indicator of success. Even if Ada is "better" than C++ that does
> not indicate it will replace it in area's where C/C++ is now domanant.

Agreed.  This is mostly a "social" issue.  Conservative programmers not
wanting to learn new things, wannabe managers knee-jerk following of fads,
etc.

> Realize it's much easier get a C compiler up and running for an embedded
> system that it is an Ada compiler. To even call it an Ada compiler it 
> must pass a validation suite. 

First point: Why do you think this?  There seems to be quite a lot of
evidence indicating that this is not true.

Second point.  Just plain wrong.  If you want, you can call your C++
compiler an Ada compiler.  Of course, no one will take you seriously,
but you are free to do so.


> The problem information systems managers have is today you must
> incorporate PC users. Why develope a schizophrenic additute of doing
> one with the domant tool (C/C++) and the other with Ada?

Maybe.  But then why not switch completely to Ada?  We are not using
C++ for anything and C only if it makes some sense (have not found that
yet) and are exclusively in Ada.  And we are on PC platforms and will
soon be much more in this environment and see no obstacle.


>I can see keeping working in COBOL, but if you were to switch, switch
> to C++.

First, there is not likely a sufficient reason to switch in such a
case (as you seem to agree).  But if you did, C++ would be the last
thing to switch to as it is about as foreign to COBOL as water is to
oil.  It just makes no sense.  Smalltalk would probably be the more
intelligent thing to go with.


> I don't think AT&T is going to start coding thier switching systems 
> in Ada just because it a better language, either.

Sad but true.  But then, they are the quintessential "old dog"...

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com