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: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-07 07:05:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305020516.bdba239@posting.google.com> <82347202.0305021418.4719da45@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305060521.400f1d80@posting.google.com> <82347202.0305061103.2ddd98e4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305070504.6866e7a3@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1052316355 27633 129.241.83.78 (7 May 2003 14:05:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:05:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63253 comp.object:62897 comp.lang.ada:37029 misc.misc:13991 Date: 2003-05-07T14:05:55+00:00 List-Id: soft-eng wrote: > In fact, that may have been the major underlying > strength of C -- it was designed by people who > were also using it. They *had* to make it usable. Well, that is also the flaw of C in that the usage requirements are too weak today. > (As opposed to Ichbiah, who *had* to make it impressive > to a committee.) No, he had to design a language from the requirements given. Many of these requirements C does not meet. > So all future users of "C" found it usable, rather > than impressive. And when you have to get actual > projects done in a short time, theoretical considerations > weigh little in the end, actual usability looms large. If you look at studies you will see that C is not a cost efficient language. Here is an study that compare the old Ada83 language to C and you can see that even this version is more cost efficient than C. http://www.adaic.com/whyada/ada-vs-c/cada_art.pdf Other comparisons can be found here: http://archive.adaic.com/intro/c.html > Giving people a set of requirements and saying > "now go design a perfect language" is the > opposite of how such things evolve naturally. That C is evolving is an overstatment. C has not evolved to deal with it's flaws and problems. I don't think the reason for the high usage of C is only a merit of the language itself, but also to a great extent the inertia. LinuxWorld.com: Five or ten years from now, will C still be as popular [...] Dennis Ritchie: I really don't know the answer to this, except to observe that software is much harder to change en masse than hardware. [...] http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-12/lw-12-ritchie.html http://www.linuxfocus.org/English/July1999/article79.html -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/