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: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' Date: 2000/03/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 594419732 References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch> <38AC41FE.73461614@earthlink.net> <952459361.11185.0.nnrp-12.d4e5bde1@news.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 952463270 218 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Mike Dimmick wrote: > "Charles Hixson" wrote in message > news:38AC41FE.73461614@earthlink.net... > > Well, they may be design errors, but they aren't all merely > unimplemented > > features (partially implemented, perhaps) as some of them are > designated > > as potentially serious problems. > > My take on this is as follows: > > There's a lot of legacy stuff in Windows 2000 that's still written in C > (as opposed to C++). Microsoft programmers seem not to take account of > the much better features of C++ as regards correctness (if you've > studied MFC, they tend to use the older (int) style casts as opposed to > the new static_cast () syntax). They also have a habit of writing > what might be considered odd memory allocation routines and > strategies -- look at CPlex in MFC for an example. The GTK authors chose to write in straight C, and they had no legacy issues to contend with. Fancy that! > Now, before you all shout about being off-topic *grin*: > > Ada is a very good language for some things. Tasking and protection of > objects for concurrent programming are very easy to do. Object > persistence is easy to support with the 'read, 'write, 'input and > 'output attributes and Ada.Streams.Stream_IO. However the tools really > aren't there to write applications like Word -- and it would be slow in > many cases, because of the amount of run-time overhead Ada adds. Mike, you don't really know Ada that well at all, do you? If you did, you'd know that you can write C level code in Ada, omit runtime checking, and have absolutely no runtime hit. You can get addresses of local variables, use function pointers, all that stuff. About the only thing you can't do as easily I think is "varargs" stuff, but it isn't too hard. > Security doesn't come cheap. > > Hope this doesn't offend people, No offense taken, but your beliefs are wrong. If you're offended, why don't you post some sample Ada which you believe incurs this runtime hit, along with the corresponding C code? -- Brian