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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Clubley Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: C versus Ada (once again :-)), was: Re: F-22 ADA Programming Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <220f97ab-9aa2-4961-b140-2b271c3ab99a@googlegroups.com> <99759c3f-a35f-4745-a8fd-2fb6ab6fb1aa@googlegroups.com> <48dc1630-8e7d-4e29-8bdd-53d74932d9d0@googlegroups.com> <88a7f98c-55c2-4b5f-8a9d-c8b7512781c8@googlegroups.com> <50cacb19-5d0b-4dbe-b91b-0b3b462913d6@googlegroups.com> <07d0ad94-160b-4873-ba1b-403e8c0bc420@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="89ae225005cb2c705106482a2c17f772"; logging-data="7318"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/UIRYEfI6/9meeWWSlsr1wLmXCWLfPAg=" User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:SDNQPLrjn9wzjY/xtuZcJwku1aU= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22956 Date: 2014-11-01T03:03:59+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-10-31, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > But here in programming, we keep C as the foundation. We keep our > backwards compatibility, our pride, our demonstrable consistency of the > C standard, our group pressure, our dreams of always doing things > correctly, our stereotypes, the ubiquity of C (self-fulfilling), > etc. All this happens even in the presence of refactoring IDEs, > automatic proof systems, or static analysis (really redefining C implicitly), We keep C because the C compilers generate code to run on everything out there - and there are always options for each target which don't restrict what you can do with the generated code unlike GNAT GPL. > This evidence would definitely allow saying Good Bye to int and *p. > So I don't believe the continued use of error prone foundations can > be explained with the help of just the pricing-related attributes of > economy. > When you are building foundation libraries, which by definition are intended to run on a wide range of platforms/targets, you need to use an implementation language which is freely available across that wide range of platforms/targets. As I keep saying in one way or another: Ada: nice language, lousy compiler situation. Most people here keep focusing on how great Ada is compared to C. You are right but you have also completely missed the point as that means nothing without a compiler situation comparable to C's if you want to start replacing foundation libraries. There's also the possibility that Ada may be a step too far for the average C programmer. Instead we should consider the possibility of a half-way language which is better (safer) than C but not as strict as Ada and would have ease of implementation/porting as one of it's goals. You can always introduce them to Ada later for the critical stuff after they have have used this language for the non-critical projects they would use C for now. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world