From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254660673 Distribution: world References: <33957A33.1C31AB44@oma.com> <865898351snz@nezumi.demon.co.uk> <339ED54C.215A5F85@oma.com> <5noc8u$a8m$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A032AC.2D8BA85C@oma.com> <5nrn86$cvo$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com> <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB.417A@gdesystems.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article abo@minkirri.apana.org.au (Donovan Baarda) writes: > >Also, at least a couple of other compiler vendors in the real-time market > >have purchased Intermetric's Ada-Magic front end, so that they too can > >spend their time on optimization, because they were able to buy the front > >end off the shelf. > > > what this also means is the front end is non-trivial, and they were better > off paying someone else a fortune for it than developing their own. What this _really_ means is that a) finally someone somewhere produced a truely reusable _and_ non-trivial "component" and b) finally some others have woke up to the fact that "rolling your own" really sucks. > >So again, I am confused by the comment that "compiler writers don't have > >time to optimize the code," because there is ample evidence to the > >contrary. For which compiler writers specifically is this the case? > > > What I should have said is; given equivalent time and resources, people > developing compilers for simpler languages will be able to put more work > into optimization than people developing Ada. First, define "simpler". On an obvious level Lisp is _vastly_ simpler than C. But doing a truely good implementation is a lot harder. Second, I don't see the relevance. The end result is what counts. Given equal time and resources people building bicycles will be able to optimize the hell out of them over the same level achieved for an ICE. So what? This sort of mentality is the absolute _bane_ of software. The reason why it can't seem to build upon itself in any way. And the reason why most of it sucks. > My original point was that arguing for your-gol based on language > merits alone is asking for trouble, because sure as chips there's > going to be some-gol out there that does it better. "In a particular area or context", is the very important bit you left out. Of course, when this bit is added in, your point is not exactly interesting. > Particularly with a language as old as Ada. I know Ada 95 is more > recent, but bolting OO onto a procedural language is always a > compromise compared to starting with a clean slate. Depends on. In the case of Ada95, this was not much of a "compromise" as it was simply extending a couple bits of what was already in Ada83. What many people (for some reason) don't seem to realize is that Ada83 had the concept of "class", had inheritance and allowed for the extension of _behavior_ in type derivations. Adding in dynamic binding and state extension was pretty natural. > Ada 83 took 63 reserved words and 180 syntax rules to do what modula-2 > does in 40 reserved words and 81 syntax rules. The only things missing > from modula-2 that are in Ada are generics, exceptions, and operator > overloading. And tasking and unconstrained types and ... This is pretty silly. No, it's _very_ silly. > However, it makes up for these deficiencys by having late binding > (through procedure variables) and a neater, cleaner, simpler syntax. Not particularly. > Europe, and has been an inspiration for many other languages > since. Most languages that claim inheritance from Ada usualy owe > more to Modula-2. Neither is particularly innovative. In fact, no computer language really is. But, the things in Ada that were "important" in "proof for everyday useage" were not in M2: Tasking, Generics, Exceptions, and (possibly) overloading. > However, since you asked; > Garbage collection, Agreed (though it is recommended by the standard) > Multiple inheritance, Strongly disagree. Actually, far more useful and expressive would be multiple dispatch (but that is certainly a whole other kettle of fish). > Design by Contract (inheritable assertions) More like class invariants. > A complete inheritance heirachy Presumably ala' Eiffel or some such. Why? Seems a big shrug. > The Ada home page is hardly going to say Ada is a crock. Just like the > Eiffel pages aren't going to say Eiffel is. Here's another interesting > URL; > > http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/contract/ariane/index.html No, this is not an interesting URL. Unless you think simplistic advertising passed off as "objectivity" is. A large, and mostly non-productive, "discussion" resulted from this, the last time it was brought up. Go back and check the results. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari