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

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4ul434$jf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> While it might not be in your mind a compelling argument, I dont believe
> it is nonsensical. Having programmed for Windows in C/C++, Pascal as well as
> BASIC, I feel that C/C++ is the most natural. Pascal does not use NULL
> terminalted strings.

This is not a problem in Ada.  See Ada.Interfaces.C, which has full support
for interoperation with C stuff (including strings, pointers, and whatnot).
Works like a champ.

> When you are using the 
> same tools the vendor used to write the OS your going to be using a good
> implementation.

Hmmm, MS would seem to be a counterexample to this claim. MSVC++ is
hardly a "good" impl of C++ under any reasonable interpretation.


> The only Ada compiler I have is for DOS so I tend to view
> it as good for learning the language, but not much else.

Well, GNAT is freely available for DOS, Win95 and WinNT.  ObjectAda
from Tomson is in the same price range as MSVC++ and has the full
blown IDE and Windoze support (with GUI builder and all...)


> Also so you
> *must* admit that lingua prima of the PC world is C/C++, with Pascal and
> BASIC taking up the rear.

It is "lingua prima", but for no reason other than inertia.  But
inertia is hard to beat.  As we all know, people are in general
mentally lazy and don't like learning anything different (let alone
new).  Programmers seem to exhibit this attitude even more than the
average joe/jane.


> be a victim of the run of your patients. In UNIX there is a lot more
> support for C than Ada, so if I were start a project I would pick C
> not Ada. There have been pure Lisp machines in which the whole OS was

Here we have the problem of perception again.  And inertia...

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

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com