Re: Translating an embedded C algorithm

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:27:58 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> But the OP didn't ask anybody to "show the crucial differences between C
> and Ada"; he asked for a simple half-page C function to be translated
> into Ada, which is a perfectly reasonable request.

Sure, but that piece of code was intended to demonstrate a solution of some
problem by means of a programming language.

> He also got "we can't translate simple C into simple
> Ada -- we need to create a hugely complicated mess",

For good or bad, but this one of key features of Ada as a programming
language, I think.

My theory is that Ada has a much finer and precise definition of program
semantics. It is a deeply layered "mess" of "what-ifs," which normal C
programmers would just promptly ignore. In Ada I never know if there
couldn't be a better way, or whether there were a hidden gotcha in some
rare obscure pathological case. This is not good. In C++ I just don't care,
I know for sure, there are lots. My attitude is different. This is also not
good, but has huge psychological (=>marketing) advantages over Ada.

> and he also got
> "you dope, how dare you ask about Ada when you don't already know Ada".

I don't justify this, but I understand the reasons, cultural reasons. I
tolerate much worse C++ code from myself and others, than I could in the
case of an "equivalent" Ada code.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de