Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...

[Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu>]

On 10 Aug 1996, Craig Franck wrote:

> I agree with that, if you include PC programming as "a certain class of
> problems". Most PC OS's are written in C/C++. It makes sense that
> applications would then be coded in C/C++ as well.

  No. Sorry. xin l^oi. Does not make sense. This statement reflects a
  fundamental lack of understanding of selecting the right tool for
  the right job. It also fails to recognize the importance of abstraction.

  For example, for mathematical problem solving, there is a plethora
  of better alternatives to C++.  For database solutions, C++ is far
  behind the many available alternatives.

  The criteria selecting a programming language should include the
  question, "How well does the language map to the problems I am
  trying to solve?"  By problems, I mean the application problem, not
  the computer problem.  If I am trying to solve a problem which
  involves massive multi-dimensional matrices of with run-time
  indeterminate magnitude, I would be best served by a language
  and its associated libraries which map most directly to that
  problem.

  I regard C++ as just too flaky, for example, to be used for
  safety-critical software. If it is OK to reboot when something
  goes wrong, go ahead and use C++. If lives depend on the quality
  of your software the selection of C++ is just short of insane.
  Just my opinion, but not an opinion arrived at lightly.

> Pascal has more
> support than Ada does in this area. I don't know of a vendor supporting
> those platforms in Ada as well as is done with C/C++. So you go with
> C/C++ due to the quality of the impementation, not the language.

  For desktop systems such as Windows 95 and NT, this is probably not
  far off. Support, even for MS-DOS, has not historically been as
  strong in Ada as it has in other languages. This is changing, and
  software publishers are escalating their support for tools and libraries
  to make Ada more attractive on the desktop.

  On the other hand, for safety-sensitive embedded systems, this is not
  true.  Ada is clearly a superior alternative to C++ when it comes to
  safe software, even though C++ continues to be used in this application
  domain.  The original problem of poor management of the Ada policy by
  the Department of Defense is difficult to overcome, but it is important
  that we do overcome it in the interest of public safety.

> I would also like to point out that technical superiority is not always
> a good indicator of success.

  No argument there.

  [snip, snip ]

> system that it is an Ada compiler. To even call it an Ada compiler it
> must pass a validation suite.

  Exactly!  Though passing validation does not ensure total quality, it
  is a first step in that direction.

> The problem information systems managers have is today you must
> incorporate PC users. Why develope a schizophrenic additute of doing
> one with the domant tool (C/C++) and the other with Ada? I can see keeping
> working in COBOL, but if you were to switch, switch to C++.

  Au contraire. Ada is unique in its direct support for legacy COBOL
  systems through a set of data types, Annexes, and other pre-defined
  packages.  In fact, no contemporary object-oriented programming
  language is as hospitable to COBOL as Ada. Ada is a perfect fit for
  the Information Systems Manager seeking solutions for modernizing
  exisiting COBOL-based software.

> I don't think AT&T is going to start coding thier switching systems
> in Ada just because it a better language, either.

  I am manifestly unimpressed by this argument.

> >  Today's C++ software is tomorrow's legacy system.
> >
>
> Doubtfull, very doubtfull

  After all is said, we can be assured that 100 years from now, our
  successors, whatever they might be called, will regard our efforts
  at designing software languages with the same high esteem we reserve
  for mathematicians in the time of Charlemagne.

  Richard Riehle