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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: abo@minkirri.apana.org.au (Donovan Baarda) Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 255175015 References: <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com> <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB.417A@gdesystems.com> X-Server-Date: 7 Jul 1997 05:53:38 GMT Organization: Minkirri Internet Access Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-07-07T05:53:38+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:11:35 -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: >On 4 Jul 1997, Donovan Baarda wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:16:15 -0800, Matthew Heaney wrote: [snip] >No, the gcc backend is (was?) C specific, and other languages like Fortran >77 also require changes (in particular to handle aliased arrays). The >changes that make it into gcc are those which can do the greatest good for >the greatest number of languages. > As a matter of interest, were the extensions added to the gcc backend for Ada and Fortran merged and added to the gcc back end in general, or are they mantained seperately as language specific backends? >> The gcc back end already has pretty impressive optimisation. > >I wonder how g77 users regard the level of optimization compared to >a good Fortran compiler? > Me too. >I agree that Ada sucks, but I think all current computer languages suck in >one way or another. Language choice is a minimization-of-suckfullness >problem with lots of variables. I think Ada 95 is reasonable solution for >some problems for now. > Agreed :-) I also believe in using the best tool for the job, which means choosing the best language for the application. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all you need is one language. Perhaps the root of all my complaints about Ada stem from the fact that it tried to be the one tool for everything. >The only things missing are GENERICS, EXCEPTIONS, and operator overloading? >Sorry, no generics makes a statically typed language lame. I can do without >language minimalism myself. In fact I even wish Ada had user defined >operators like Algol 68! I agree that Ada would be better with Pascal style >procedure parameters, but you can fake them with generics or (to be >compiler-specific) with Unrestricted_Access in GNAT. > Procedure variables in a staticly typed language with no generics make it less lame. However, generics are a neat feature. When I need them in modula-2 I use the M4 macro-pre-processor to implement them (A trick I learned at Uni that was being used with Pascal by one lecturer). >> Feature counting alone is not enough to gauge the technical merits. Too >> many features can also compromise a language. The thing to aim for is the >> minimum number of features required to cover the maximum number of >> target applications most comfortably. > >Its still not a well-posed problem, and intelligent people will disagree >on what is "good". Lots of people think that OO is mostly BS and would >prefer languages based on genericity, higher order functions, and such. > I never said it was easy. Mostly it is very subjective, which is the main reason why language flame wars are a waste of time. (Says I, who started this one :-) >The rest of this is an ad for Eiffel, which Donovan seems to like, but >which, IMHO, also sucks. > Actualy, it does look a bit like an ad for Eiffel, but I didn't mean it quite that way. Eiffel also has its limitations, and is definitely not for every application. However, IMHO, in most of the applications that people advocate Ada for, Eiffel probably would be better. That's if you only take into account language features, of course. >-- Brian > >PS : Before the Eiffel jihad returns fire, I'll add that Eiffel does > not suck nearly as much as many popular languages :-) > Eiffel's biggest problem is it is even bigger than Ada. It also tries to be the one tool for everything. ABO