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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-07 17:00:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.worldonline.be!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: 08 Feb 2004 02:00:01 +0100 Organization: Worldonline Belgium Sender: lbrenta@lbrenta Message-ID: References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-62-235-80-7.tiscali.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.worldonline.be 1076202045 7555 62.235.80.7 (8 Feb 2004 01:00:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldonline.be NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 01:00:45 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5327 Date: 2004-02-08T02:00:01+01:00 List-Id: David Starner writes: > On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:00:35 +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > > Of course, this is a lie, because programming is inherently > > difficult and no language can make it easy. > > That's exactly what the assembly language programmers said about the > first Fortran compiler, and it's equally wrong now. Sure, there are cases > where you need to run DSP code and coordinate with the home base thirty > million miles away using one space-hardened 386, and that's hard. Then > there's the cases where you need two lines of shell to simplify moving > files around, and that's something assembly or Fortran or Ada or Java > would make much more complex then it is. If you call this programming, then you're right. Scripting languages do have a place and purpose. I was more concerned with large-scale, real-world programming, where Ada shines but is being ignored by too many people. I was only trying to explain to myself why. I stand by my claim that no language can make programming easy. But a language help you find, or avoid, bugs. > > (like e.g. memory management. If some Java > > "guru" reads this, ask yourself this one question: how many threads > > does your program have, and please justify the existence of each > > thread). > > In the Jargon file, there's a story of a man who bummed every cycle out of > a poker program, even the initialization code, who spurned assembly > language because it was too inefficient. How would you explain your choice > of programming language to him? I would ask him, "would you trust your own life to your program"? > Who cares if there's a couple extra threads running? You make a big > deal about languages that protect you against buffer overflows, why > not use a language that protects you against memory leaks? Because I want to control exactly how much memory my program uses, and I want to know exactly how many "a couple" means, and why these "couple" threads are necessary. You referred to embedded software for space-bound devices, this is one area where these questions are really important. I am willing to accept run-time inefficiency and "a couple extra threads" if justified. There are some languages that force these upon you and won't justify this cost. > > The "zen master" languages are Pascal, Modula, > > Oberon, and, master of masters, Ada. > > Pascal is hardly usable, unless you use one of a dozen proprietary > extensions. That's hardly "zen master". That is true, but I meant "master" in the sense of "teacher". Pascal was quite good at teaching, and as a "master" it had quite a lot of apprentices. -- Ludovic Brenta.