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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc52c633190162e0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Greylist: delayed 3600 seconds by postgrey-1.24 at green; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:34:02 CET To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org References: <5ZULh.48$YL5.40@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> In-Reply-To: <5ZULh.48$YL5.40@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>; from "adaworks@sbcglobal.net" at Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:37:05 GMT Organization: 100 From: "Alexander E. Kopilovich" Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:29:34 +0300 (MSK) X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.45 MSDOS] Subject: Re: why learn C? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Original-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Leafnode-NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.191.17.134 NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Mar 2007 15:35:03 MET NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.191.14.223 X-Trace: 1174487703 news-3.free.fr 3634 88.191.14.223:48106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14573 Date: 2007-03-21T15:35:03+01:00 >It has always seemed rather odd to me that people who are as intelligent >as programmers, rarely question the silliness of using tools such as C >and C++ for serious work. Well, which work is "serious", and which is not? And even if some project as a whole is commonly agreed as "serious", does this imply that every piece of it (perhaps easily replaceble), every subcontracted supply for it, and every tool used (directly or indirectly) for it - is "serious" also? > They simply take for granted that the kind >of errors that are so common in those languages are somehow akin to >the laws of nature. They simply see that too many programmers that participate (directly or indirectly) in very many projects - including big projects - do not posses understanding of what they are doing, and actually quite often aren't much interested in it. It should be only too clear for every "intelligent programmer" that widespread (and ever-increasing) use of hordes of low-paid half-educated programmers matters much more than a particular choice of programming language. And indeed, it may be well possible that in such circumstances C/C++ is really better choice than Ada for many reasons, including the languages attitudes that are more congenial to the mentality of the vast majority of developers.