Re: why learn C?

["Peter C. Chapin" <pchapin@sover.net>]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in 
news:1175246243.5771.67.camel@localhost.localdomain:

> If you allow me to be pedantic, SPARK is not distinguished from
> Ada by external rules for programmers. Rather, it has its own
> language definition, and translators that know about nothing
> but the SPARK language. This approach is very different from
> establishing coding rules.

How is it different than using coding guidelines together with a tool 
that checks them automatically? I've used lint-like tools with C++ and 
I've found the combination effective. I express my coding guidelines in 
terms of which checks I enable in the tool. This is a tedious process 
but once done the configuration can be reused with multiple projects so 
it's not too terrible. Then I write programs so that the tool produces 
no messages.

The tool essentially defines a language that is a subset of the full 
language. By insisting that the tool produces no messages I'm getting 
mechanical verification that I'm using just that subset. In some 
respects it's not that different from using a stricter language in the 
first place except that I get to define the precise subset I want to 
use. Using a lax language like C++ together with a configurable tool 
thus gives me a degree of flexibility over the case where the 
programming language itself specifies all sorts of required checks that 
I can't configure.

On the other hand there is a portability issue introduced by using a 
third party tool. I can see that as being a major problem for programs 
written by multiple teams. Since Ada targets exactly those kinds of 
programs, Ada's approach of incorporating as much checking as possible 
into the standard language makes sense. I either work alone or in small 
groups, however, so using a third party tool is less of an issue for me.

The approach I outline here is not without its problems, but it does 
help one write reliable programs with a lax language. I don't consider 
myself a genius programmer (although I do have a lot of experience with 
C++) but I spend very little time in the debugger.

All around I appreciate Ada's approach and I enjoy working with Ada. 
Indeed, knowing Ada has made me a better C++ programmer. I especially 
like Ada's clean syntax and standards such as ASIS that make writing 
advanced tools for Ada easier. As you can probably guess, I'm a big 
believer in extending a programming language with tools. It's too bad 
that building tools for C++ is such a big pain in the neck. C++'s nasty 
syntax, together with the preprocessor, are probably the worst things 
about the language because they inhibit tool building.

Peter