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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254636212 References: <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com> <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB.417A@gdesystems.com> Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-07-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 4 Jul 1997, Donovan Baarda wrote: > On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:16:15 -0800, Matthew Heaney wrote: > whoa, I never intended to spark another language war, but I guess I asked > for it with that last paragraph :-) They're a fact of newsgroup existence, like the weather. > But the language complexity doesn't just impact the front end, it also > makes the back end harder as well. In the case of GNAT, I belive they > started with the gcc backend, but had to modify it to meet Ada's specific > requirements. Many other compilers for more compact languages manage to > use the gcc back end unchanged. No, the gcc backend is (was?) C specific, and other languages like Fortran 77 also require changes (in particular to handle aliased arrays). The changes that make it into gcc are those which can do the greatest good for the greatest number of languages. > I'd be interested in knowing if the effort spent on the back end was > actualy improving optimization, or just trying to shoe-horn Ada into it. > The gcc back end already has pretty impressive optimisation. I wonder how g77 users regard the level of optimization compared to a good Fortran compiler? > Granted, Ada is better than C or Fortran for most applications. But there > are other languages that do it better. However, before I get into a > your-gol vs my-gol discussion, I should point out that it is easy to > invent a new language that is "better" than any other language for a > variety of reasons (especialy with the benefit of hindsite). It is much > harder, and more significant, to get that language into widespread use. I agree that Ada sucks, but I think all current computer languages suck in one way or another. Language choice is a minimization-of-suckfullness problem with lots of variables. I think Ada 95 is reasonable solution for some problems for now. > Now back to the language war :-) > > Ada 83 took 63 reserved words and 180 syntax rules to do what modula-2 > does in 40 reserved words and 81 syntax rules. The only things missing > from modula-2 that are in Ada are generics, exceptions, and operator > overloading. However, it makes up for these deficiencys by having late > binding (through procedure variables) and a neater, cleaner, simpler > syntax. The only things missing are GENERICS, EXCEPTIONS, and operator overloading? Sorry, no generics makes a statically typed language lame. I can do without language minimalism myself. In fact I even wish Ada had user defined operators like Algol 68! I agree that Ada would be better with Pascal style procedure parameters, but you can fake them with generics or (to be compiler-specific) with Unrestricted_Access in GNAT. > Feature counting alone is not enough to gauge the technical merits. Too > many features can also compromise a language. The thing to aim for is the > minimum number of features required to cover the maximum number of > target applications most comfortably. Its still not a well-posed problem, and intelligent people will disagree on what is "good". Lots of people think that OO is mostly BS and would prefer languages based on genericity, higher order functions, and such. The rest of this is an ad for Eiffel, which Donovan seems to like, but which, IMHO, also sucks. -- Brian PS : Before the Eiffel jihad returns fire, I'll add that Eiffel does not suck nearly as much as many popular languages :-)