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

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4ur9ii$7r4@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> computing machinery, we ain't gunna buy it. They have said in
> the past (and if I'm wrong correct me, because my batting average
> is a little low)

Rest assured someone will catch you out if you're factually wrong.
Opinions and value judgements are another matter.  This little
"history" you give is rather naive, but there are any number of views
on why this or that happened in the proliferation or lack thereof in
programming language history.


> Now Ada comes along. Want to bid on a contract to do embeded 
> systems programming? Do it in Ada, because that's what the
> specifications are for the project. Got a neat little 

Well, that was the orginal intension, but it has not happened so much
in practice or at the very least it has been widely ignored if the
various reports one sees flying around here are accurate.


> Saves *alot* of money, no doubt. But if someone say's we have
> looked at this problem and we think Smalltalk is the best
> HLL to go with and they say "didn't you read the specifications
> of the project?, We are going with Ada!" that squews thing's 
> in Ada's behalf. 

It would be wrong and stupid.  It probably has happened.  Just like
when "Me too!" wannabe fadophile managers insist that you must use C++
when an Ada solution is clearly superior.  OTOH, as I say, the
evidence strongly suggests that people pretty much use whatever they
want to use irrespective of merit or legality.


> Now, perhaps I'm wrong again and you can just pick and choose
> 'tell your harts content on what language you can use on a particular
> project

The evidence seems to suggest that this is more or less true _in
practice_.  And again, it is true even when the language chosen is NOT
Ada and Ada would clearly have been _more_ appropriate.


> planet, *alot* of it's success came from it being the darling
> of the DOD

I'm sure you don't realize just how absolutely hilarious this
statement is to the c.l.a audience.  Ada is hardly the "darling" of
the DoD (which seems to have jumped on the C++ fadomobile with a lot
of "Me too!  Me too!" brain dead behavior).  It maybe _should_ be,
but that's not the same thing.


> It's first spefication, I believe, was DOD-1. This

??? Where'd you come up with this one???  The original Ada did have a
Mil Std reference # (in addition to ANSI and ISO #s), which happened
to be 1815 (year or Ada's birth).


> in itself doesn't bother me(like I said, I still rent video's)
> but quite often cloat sets standards, not technical excellence.

Sure.  Like AT&T or MS and C or C++ or DOS or Windoze or...  You gotta
keep this in perspective: Big Dumbo companies can be every bit as
stupid, clumsy, incompetent and beauracratic as government.  And
likewise, there are times when specific people involved can rise above
this sorry state of affairs.

Ada is technically _very_ good (nothing to do with software is
excellent) and I have said in the past that the worst thing to happen
to Ada was the government.  Because of all these goofy perception
problems.  Of course, the flip side is that it wouldn't have happened
without the government either.


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

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com