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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 433794062 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <8p6vhi5mv34.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:35:41 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Coffin writes: > Matthew Heaney writes: > > > This response contains no substantive information. If vague criticisms > > like "Ada is complex" are the best you can do, then I must conclude that > > you don't really know Ada. > > I guess I should have inserted smileys for the humor impaired. > (Ada is very complex compared to a bowling ball, very simple compared > to a space shuttle.) I am interested in specifics. List 5 specific language features by which you conclude Ada is "complex." If you are unable to list 5 (I'll settle for fewer) specific features that you think make Ada a complex language, then you will have failed to argue your case for the putative complexity of Ada. It is customary in logic that the conclusion be preceded by premises. I guess if your argument begins with the premise "True", then you can make any conclusion you want! Statisticians must prove the alternate hypothesis, scientists must show how all the data is explained (better) by their theory, and lawyers must prove guilt by a preponderance of evidence. I hold you to the same standard, and I will not accept vague criticisms like "Ada is complex," without specific, substantive reasons for this assessment. Here's a little story, often ascribed to Abe Lincoln: Abe: Suppose you call a tail a leg. How many legs does a dog have? Student: Five. Abe: Wrong. The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg. Moral: Just because you say Ada is complex doesn't make it so! -- Those who believe in the supernatural should be required to learn computer programming. This would force them to discover that things which appear at first to be completely mysterious and incomprehensible, in fact have a logical (and usually simple) explanation. --J.B.R. Yant