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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tim Behrendsen <tim@airshields.com>
Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
Date: 1996/08/01
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.960801090756.64586H-100000@wc.airshields.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171430802
organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Byron B. Kauffman wrote:

> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
> > 
> snip...
> > 
> > You are probably right, if you let the optimizer handle everything.
> > But C also gives the capability to do things such as ...
> > 
> > if ((array[++n] = GetValue(arg)) != 0) {
> >     ....
> > 
> > v.s. a typical non-C language ...
> > 
> > n = n + 1;
> > array[n] = GetValue(arg);
> > if (array[n] != 0) {
> >     ...
> > }
> > 
> > Now, which is easier to optimize?  (more snip)
> > 
> 
> Tim, I'm 180 degrees out of phase from you, experience-wise. I've
> professionally done around 10klocs of Ada, and about 24 or so lines of
> C, although I sucked it up and took C++ from a local junior college last
> fall just so I can say that I did.
> 
> With all that in mind, I'm going to ask (in reference to the code
> samples above), which is easier to read and/or maintain? The answer,
> from my C-ignorant perspective, is the non-C example, but a C compiler
> obviously wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, though, the
> compiler is not the one that maintains or ports the code to another
> platform. IMHO, this is where Ada has the edge over C - it was designed
> primarily with the -ilities in mind. I don't know if it is the industry
> norm, but my primary job description for years was 80% code maintenance
> and rehosting, 20% new code. It is my perception that that is what was
> eating DoD's lunch and why they commissioned Ada.

My statement above is a very common C expression; if you used it every
day, you would think nothing of it.  In fact, I could make a strong
argument that the first example is much more readable/maintainable,
because it's brief and concise.  Too much of the latter, of course, begins
to be a bad thing (take APL, for example).

I certainly don't mean to imply that maintainability isn't important;
in fact, I think it's the *most* important.  If there are significant
gains to be made in that department, then I think Ada has a chance
to succeed out of its nitch.

Having personally written in the neighborhood of 200-300 klocs of C code
(guess? could be more), I think I have a pretty good sense of how things
gets optimized.  My main point, which I think is getting lost in the
swirl of examples, is that in the real world, optimizers aren't that
smart.  Yes, you can find the "super optimizer" that does a good job when
run in "-cape" mode, but in the everyday trenches, I just don't come
across them very often.

There just is no substitute for writing code with an eye toward what
the compiler can and will do with it.

Regards,

-- Tim Behrendsen (tim@airshields.com)