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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: asmang@CRAZYSPAMmail.wm.edu (Arun Mangalam) Subject: Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/10/23 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 404350393 References: <6skfs7$2s6$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F252DD.5187538@earthlink.net> <6t4dge$t8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6t5mtp$4ho$1@news.indigo.ie> <35FFE58C.5727@ibm.net> <3600E72E.24C93C94@cl.cam.ac.uk> <6ts1q0$vo2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <361DBC60.C153BBAD@earthlink.net> <36228EC3.4F7381FD@domain.nul> <3630b064.23189339@news.supernews.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: 3e1orcibSx8HWzxjkrCnAQ5EhZMfu8VE1qlv6SjQbJc= Organization: William & Mary Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: There are practically only two reasosn why Brian Mueller would reply this way: 1) His teacher is complete moron who doesn't comment anything and does barely any error-checking with Ada. 2) Brian does not know how to listen or understand what the professor is trying to do or say. The first case is probably not very credible, since most professors are not imbeciles not able to see error-checking is valuable and commenting is extremely valuable. The second case sounds very possible, since the professor might have wanted the students to learn the compile-time error-checking of Ada and how Ada synatx comments itself. This is especially true because many of the students are used to other relatively unreadable languages such as C, where they are somewhat under the impression that shorter names are more efficient. If this is the case, which it probably is, it's very disheartening to see how many non-thinking monkeys there are running around claiming to know something. I, myself, am learning Ada and find it's compile time error checking completely awesome. I make so many mistakes in C where Ada would have either had a simpler way to do it or would show me I'm making a mistake before the program crashes. I just wish Ada had some free frameworks as comprehensive as that for C for developing GUI applications under the Macintosh or, maybe, Windows. PowerPlant in Ada would be fantastic. :) In article <3630b064.23189339@news.supernews.com>, pluto1@choice.net (Brian Mueller) wrote: >On 13 Oct 1998 00:12:49 GMT, last.first@domain.nul wrote: > ><...snip...> >> >>> -- Ada compilers were late, buggy, slow, too expensive, no libraries, .... >> >>And commercial Fortrans and Pascals were not? For some reason, ADA >>became a bete noir; I suspect mostly because the CUSTOMER wanted it >>and the vendors didn't want to spend any money on learning to do it. >>Longterm thinking be dammed, what's the quarterly bottom line? > >Damned straight, freakin ObjectADA that I got for school has got to be >the slowest thing I've ever worked with, and it frequently >crashes....very frequently. > >> >>> -- Ada was not C, thus perceived worthless for Unix and Windows. >> >>I've been of the opinion that compilers need to add internal error >>checking since I got into this business: the standard "buffer >>overflow"/"stack overflow" exploits in things like webservers just >>demonstrates that even if the people who write the code probably KNOW >>BETTER, they don't reliably implement error checks. >> >>Does this mean that C and C++ are bad per se? >> >>No: it just means that a lot of code goes into production systems >>that does not implement error checking that freshman computer science >>101 demanded one design and build in. >>The idea of designing/building error checking into your code, at least >>in CS101, has been pretty consistent over the years; the idea of not >>bothering, since "it's just an irrelevent academic exercize, has also >>been pretty common to language specific training over the years, too. > >I disagree, shit in my C.S. 101 programming class (which is guess >what, ADA) my instructor took points OFF my first two projects because >I implemented Error checking and handling (for constraint and invalid >input errors). I would have to say that I said "fuck errors" for my >third design. Well, they just taught me that error checking isn't a >good thing. > >> >>[The first time I took CS 101 was 1974, using PL1; I've retaken >>selected CS, IS, and SE courses ever since: including the >>introductory CS101 in 1991 (ISO Pascal), 1995 (Microsoft C), and 1997 >>(JAVA) and noted that EVERY TIME they emphacized writing error >>detecting/error tolerent code.] > >Well, it's 1998, I'm in C.S. 101 at the University of Cincinnati, RWC >and we're learning how to badly code ADA (i.e. forget about code >errors, concentrate on "design documents") > >Wish they would just teach me C, teach me GOOD C, teach me GREAT C, >teach my how not to screw up C so I could write anything. Anyone >wonder why the object ADA compiler and GUI program is written in C? >Because with a bit of extra work FASTER programs can be written in C >that do the same thing that ADA will do. > >> >>ADA (and Pascal and Eiffel and half a dozen other unfashionable >>languages) was a step in the direction of moving some of the neglected >>portions of the software design/engineering/implementation process out >>of the hands of the coder and into the realm of the automated tool >>(i.e., the language's syntax forces it or the compiler does it for >>you). >> >>> -- Mismanagement by the DOD. >> >>No argument there: establish a requirement and then arbitrarily >>waiver the requirement is mismanagement. >> >>> -- No hyped technology that it could be piggybacked on. (Like C, Java) >> >>What's the relevance? >> >>The announced intent of ADA was to provide a way to produce better >>(reliability/maintainability sense) code that could be reused. >> >>That the industry was/is still driven by coders using handicraft >>worker's perspectives and by some (or most) upper management with a >>"don't spend a penny that you don't have to since everything is based >>on quarterly profit" perspective rather than not isn't exactly a >>glowing review of the industry. >> >>> -- Winning cold war sucked most of the life out of the defense field. >> >>Maybe. Or maybe the lack of QRC program quick-fixes every 14 months >>for mission critical threats isn't relevant. >> >>> >>> So it was more like "Ada sucks! and ... this Hoare guys says so too!". >>> >>Sure: and we're still floundering on in an industry where pre-1970 >>techniques such as DOCUMENTATION and VERSION CONTROL seem to be mostly >>regarded as wasteful, unnecessary, or pointless. >>> >>> Jay > >Now that you bring that up, I got into trouble for having too many >comment blocks in my code, WFT is this? I could have handed my >project to anyone in that room and they would have been able to read >it and understand what I was doing easily from my comments. I've >always been told, the more, the better. I hate my C.S. class, can't >wait until the spring when I get to take C (which I know a bit), and >learn how to do it RIGHT. > > >All my points have been based on my own experience, yours may differ, >my point was. In my C.S. class I'm being told NOT to do error >handling, we'll cover error handling in a few quarters, that's not >until chaper 45.....etc. And that commenting your source is bad (he >wants one comment block at the top of the program, with name, date, >version, short description, that's it. It's not all us, it's our >teachers, who are just about 80 years old, and want us to follow >exactly what they did. > >PLUTO of ilL > pluto1@choice.NOSPAM-NOSPAM.net > >C-ya -- asmang@CRAZYSPAMmail.wm.edu remove the CRAZYSPAM to reply. These spamming buggers are really annoying.