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 X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,d730ea9d54f7e063 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175000868 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> <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> 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: 1996-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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