Re: C bug of the day

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@att.net>]

kanze@gabi-soft.fr wrote in
news:d6652001.0306110131.6ac9e693@posting.google.com: 

> jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net (Jim Rogers) wrote in message
> news:<82347202.0306101232.16776a81@posting.google.com>...
> 
>> I suppose, if your whole experience is using C and / or C++ you would
>> have a difficult time understanding Ada from a purely intellectual
>> viewpoint. Some of these understandings must derive from more
>> visceral experience.
> 
> Bingo.  I've read about Ada.  I've even read the Ada standard.  I
> admire Ada.  I suspect that it is a really effective language.  But
> until I've actually used it, in a real application of some size, I
> can't really know.  (I also suspect that it has some hidden catches
> too.  Probably less than C++, but it WAS developed by human beings.)
> 
> And don't read too much into my original comment.  I was unaware of
> the cross-posting to the Ada group, and the point I was trying to make
> was only that C++ isn't perfect, but that with care, it can be used
> effectively.  To a certain degree, of course, the same can be said of
> any language -- I'll stand by my statement that a perfect language
> doesn't exist.  But obviously, the amount of care varies according to
> the language.  Perhaps more importantly, where the care is needed
> varies: one of the most common errors in Java programs is forgetting a
> finally; in C++, the proper use of destructors make this particular
> problem almost inexistant.
> 

I do not think you will get any significant resistance to the idea that
Ada is imperfect. If you look through the current list of threads in 
comp.lang.ada you will find a number of suggestions for improving the
language.

You will also probably see that few of these suggestions are focused on
improving fundamental Ada safety. Most are focused on ways to make Ada
more popular.

I assert that it is impossible to develop a universally perfect language.
Different problem domains require different language strengths. I do not,
for instance, believe a single language can satisfy all the requirements
of a scripting language while simultaneously satisfying all the needs of
an embedded language used in SIL-4 level applications.

Jim Rogers