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: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,d730ea9d54f7e063 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173300122 references: <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4s4adc$l4a@ecuador.it.earthlink.net> <31EA0B65.3EF8@wgs.estec.esa.nl> <31EF7E48.5ABE@lmtas.lmco.com> <4ss8ru$3d4@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <31F28DBD.2A1D@harris.com> <31f3c52e.238719470 <4tnoeh$qjr@maverick.tad.eds.com> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Darrin Smith (fignet05.darrins@eds.com) wrote: In article , rriehle@nunic.nu.edu says... > > One of the most absurd things that MIS directors have done in the > > past several years is try to convert their financial systems to C++. > How long have you been coding in C++? Although I might agree that it is more > logical to go from COBOL to OOCOBOL (especially if your current development > team knows COBOL), your comment about the C language is totally asinine. Darrin, I welcome your differing point-of-view but would prefer that we not resort to pejoratives in discussing it, OK. My view, with regard to the C family of languages, is not something at which I have arrived so lightly as you might assume. As only one of many technical points, I regard any language which depends on pointer arithmetic for the creation of non-trivial programs to be potentially dangerous. Call me asinine if you will, but I suspect I am not alone in this view. C and C++ do encourage such practices as part of the development process. I could cite other examples of dangerous aspects of C++, including the truly bizarred exception handling model, but brevity dictates otherwise. Thank you for agreeing with regarding the benefits of OO COBOL over C++. Of course, if an organization were to decide to totally abandon their use of COBOL, Ada would certainly be a more suitable choice than C++. Ada 95 actually includes a model (in one of its annexes) for interpoperability with legacy COBOL code, and an information systems annex that makes it easy for a COBOL programmer to use data types and data editing features that are closer to those of COBOL. C++ and C are probably fine for certain classes of problems, but they are certainly archaic when compared to the progress being made in the world of programming languages. And I do not refer only to Ada in that last sentence. Eiffel also comes to mind as a preferred alternative to C++. Today's C++ software is tomorrow's legacy system. Richard Riehle