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

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4v5pis$4h1@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> for C/C++ on Windows and UNIX platforms is the best of any language.
> Yes, you can program in Ada on a UNIX platform but I would point 
> out that the compiler is written in C.

Criminey.  By now, having made several such goof-ball errors of fact,
you would think that you would be just a little more careful before
blowing some more smoke and looking even more clueless than you've
already shown yourself to be.  The above statement is certainly not
true of any of the Ada compilers that I've used - on UN* or not.  The
one most people could use on UN* right now, GNAT (Gnu Ada) is written
in Ada95 (while reusing the standard GCC backend for code generation).

Is there any particular reason why you seem to like to parade your
ignorance in public like this?


> find myself falling victim to time and time again. Like when I'm
> writing : how many OSs or compilers are written in Ada? And not as
> an acedemic exercise to prove it is possible, but in actual use?

Compilers: A lot.  OSs: Boatloads.  You can legitimately argue that
virtually all embedded systems have OSs as part of their definition
and function.


> Well alot of the code for the telephone switching system is written 
> in C/C++. The system did become unstable do to (how ironic!) a poorly coded
> switch statement back in 1990, but on the whole I don't think there

How would you know?  My guess is that the things have several backups
in case of failures (software or hardware).


> I were to ride on the space shuttle, I would be concerned with how
> well the software was written and tested, not what language it

Sure.  And?  If there is any point here it concerns whether the
language helps in these regards.  There's a whole spectrum here from
actively helpful to passively benign to actively pernicious.  May as
well use the actively helpful.


> Well see above, and call AT&T and tell them that that they better get 
> started writing everything in Ada right away! :-) 

AT&T is irrelevant.  For several reasons.  Not the least of which is
that they have more old dog inertia than is humanly comprehensible.


> maintain when justifing language aspects. When the ANSI standard was
> submitted for public review, I believe the strongest objection was
> that the language was *huge*, and this was before OO extension were
> added.

Yes, this is another "software urban legend".  I suppose the fact that
the C++ draft is significantly bigger than ISO 8652:1995 eludes you.
This despite the fact that the Ada standard supports easy expression
of anything C++ does (often much simpler) and many things that C++
does not support, including full support for concurrent programming
and out of the box interoperation with other languages.


> It is important to have a historical perspective on things.

Yes.  Unfortunately, you continue to show that you do not have a clue
about the current situation let alone the historical one.

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

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com