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: 103376,577c9f9c0cdd76d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Confusing language, was Re: Help help.. please.i am totaly new in ada programing Date: 1999/11/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 547435710 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <7vqgs2$lcc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38233108.F3540F0@ebox.tninet.se> <806716$i6c2@ftp.kvaerner.com> <807109$8m0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38270DC7.86553BB1@pwfl.com> <38285C60.B3E2D2BC@pwfl.com> <809u91$3ik$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net> <80djdu$491$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > > In article , > Robert A Duff wrote: > > Still, you (and Robert Dewar) now blame it on deficiencies of > > COBOL, which is quite fair. > > No, we did not say it was a deficiency, to make such a claim > indicates a lack of knowledge of COBOL and how it is used. OK, you didn't say it was a deficiency, but I still think it *is* a deficiency. It's not *always* true that people who disagree with you lack your knowledge -- sometimes they disagree for other reasons. ;-) > A fundamental principle of COBOL, not present in other > languages, is that data is represented the same externally > and internally and is fully portable. This leads directly to > the character model of data. I disagree. It is possible to define a binary representation that is still standard and portable. So the fact that COBOL forces an unwelcome choice between portability and efficiency, seems like a flaw to me. Especially when, as you say, memory was 100,000 times more expensive. >... This is not a deficiency, just > a design decision with advantages and disadvantages. But once > you have data in this form, it definitely is the case that > 4-digit years will take up more expensive core memory than > 2-digit years. > > Note as a contrast Ada's view of how to store dates, which is > completely hidden from the programmer. If you instantiate > sequential I/O for a type with Calendar.Time in it, you get > a tape full of highly implementation dependent data, something > that one avoids like the plague in the COBOL world. Right, and that's a flaw in Ada. Ever since Ada 95 was standardized, I've been thinking we made a big mistake: we should have made the streams stuff portable. Data portability seems like it's even more important in these network times, than it was when COBOL was designed. > The importance of data representation consistency in the COBOL > world is so high that no compiler is viable unless it is bit > compatible in data representation with standard IBM compilers, > including the ability to use EBCDIC to represent character data. > COBOL goes much further than Ada in worrying about *data* > compatibility. For example, the standard stream data in Ada is > nowhere near being portable! Right, and I think that's bad. - Bob