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,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu>
Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
Date: 1996/07/26
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.92.960726113551.25896B-100000@nunic.nu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170383790
references: 
 <31daad10.57288085@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov><4rgqp7$iv6@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be><Pine.SUN.3.91.960705092616.22981B-100000@erlang.praxis.co.uk><31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov><dewar.836839308@schonberg>
 <4rvr2j$2gb0@info4.rus.uni-s <nhn30yhw6t.fsf@paralysys>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: National University, San Diego
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 18 Jul 1996, Nasser Abbasi wrote:

The following absurdity is nested too deeply for me to determine
who actually authored it, but it cannot go without comment.


>    >What I said is that it's as easy to write high-quality software in
>    >assembler  as it is in any language.  It's not the language that's
>    >the problem.  It's the  programmer.  A high-quality programmer will
>    >turn out high-quality code regardless of the language, and a poor
>    >programmer will turn out poor quality code no matter how hard the
>    >language tries to prevent him.

  Putting aside any specific language for a moment, did the author of
  this little gem really believe what he wrote when he/she said"

    "... it's as easy to write high quality software in assembler
     as it is in any language"  ????

  While the "high quality" programmer is coding the two hundred lines
  of preparatory housekeeping code to implement some simple routine
  to open a file, the COBOL/Ada/C++ programmer is simply coding an
  "open" statement.  What's that, you say? You will use a "macro."
  Sorry, you are restricted to pure assembler. No constructs that
  are reminiscent of high-order languages are allowed.

  Even Forth programmers know the virtue of "abstraction."

  Language does make a difference.  Some languages are inherently
  dangerous. Some more than others.  A language such as COBOL 68/74
  which depends on global data is well-known for its difficulty in
  long-term maintenance.  That is why we saw COBOL 85 make it
  possible to fix that problem.  C, a universal assembler is known
  to be dangerous because of its dependence on pointer gymnastics.
  C++ brings some relief (though not enough). Eiffel, with all of its
  excellence, brings automatic garbage collection (as does Java) and
  limits its viability for certain classes of hard, real-time systems
  (HRTS) applications.

  Language does make a difference. And selecting the appropriate
  language can also make an important difference.

  Ada is weak in the availability of off-the-shelf development tools.
  I know some of you don't believe this, but take a look at your recent
  issue of Programmer's Paradise or other catalog of software development
  tools.  C++ is strong in the availability of tools.  If you want to
  do Windows 95 or NT programming today, your main option is C++.

  Language does make a difference.  If I have a serious effort in
  mathematics to complete, do you think I will turn down an opportunity
  to use Mathematica?  Well, I could always put a paper bag over its
  head and pretend it is Ada.

  Of course language makes a difference.

  Richard Riehle