Re: Who Wants Ada?

Re: Who Wants Ada?

[Mark Galassi]

In article <494@bonnie.UUCP> spf@bonnie.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>> .... This is what the Ada people
>> need to drive through their skulls: we don't want another COBOL or
>> Pascal! (No personal offence to "Ada people".)
>> 
>> 						Mark Galassi
>> 					...!tektronix!reed!rosalia
>> {These views are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }
Since then Steve has written me a couple of letters, showing that he
understands that C has more raw power and that the reasons for preferring
Ada are managerial (large projects with many poeple require
a language oriented towards tyranny rather than anarchy). This does
confirm that nobody will program in Ada for the joy of it, but rather
as a chore. My deep respect for Steve, but a couple of things need
correcting:
>
>Just for the record, on my DEC PRO 350 (a PDP-11/23 running RSX-11M)
>the code generated by the Pascal compiler has consistently been 50-100%
>FASTER than the code generated by Whitesmith's C compiler.

** Use the DECUS C compiler (public domain), it performs better than other
compilers on RSX and RT-11.

>The point is this: C is not necessarily more efficient than Pascal (or
>Ada, etc).  The quality of the compiler and run-time system is where
>it's at.  While I'm not in love with either Ada or C, the argument I
>read on the net sounds more like defense of the familiar (C) against
>the unknown (Ada), which is not a very open-minded frame of mind for
>people in a high-tech, fast-paced industry.
>Steve Frysinger

** what is more open-minded than programming because it is enjoyable
rather than a duty? I have also seen projects for which C presented
portability, and many people could modify the code and understand it.
Microsoft develops all its applications in C, as do many other high-
powered companies. Some programs for bank use have been written in C 
and were amazingly efficient (the programmers probably hated it :-) ).
My code always passes lint checks with the "-b" and other tight options.
>Why would I waste my time expressing anybody's opinions but my own?

** you wouldn't waste time if they all agreed with you. :-)

						Mark Galassi
					...!tektronix!reed!rosalia

Who Wants Ada?: I Do!

[Stavros Macrakis]

Why must we have flaming on net.lang?:

> >> .... This is what the Ada people need to drive through their
> >> skulls: we don't want another COBOL or Pascal! (No personal
> >> offence to "Ada people".)

`Drive through their skulls' is vulgar and offensive, whatever you say.
`Another COBOL or Pascal' is meaninglessly vague.

> ...he understands that C has more raw power...

`Understands' is condescending and offensive.  I think you mean `agrees'.

A bulldozer has more `raw power' than a dental drill; does that make it
better for drilling teeth?  What do you mean by `raw power', anyway?
Access to low-level operations?  Look up unchecked_conversion and the
rest of chapter 13 in Ada.  You can straightforwardly do random pointer
operations etc. in Ada when you need to.

> ... and that the reasons for preferring Ada are managerial ...

Ada presents advantages especially for large problems developed by
groups over long periods, but such notions as packages, types,
generics, exceptions, tasks, aggregates, etc. have applicability to a
very wide range of problems.  Surely you don't avoid using `make' and
`rcs' in personal work because they also help in dealing with large
problems!

> (large projects with many poeple require a language oriented towards
> tyranny rather than anarchy). 

Empty words.  Type checking is not `tyranny', although I'm tempted to
agree that C is anarchical....

> This does confirm that nobody will program in Ada for the joy of it,
> but rather as a chore.

What `confirms' this?

> >the argument... on the net sounds more like defense of the
> >familiar (C) against the unknown (Ada), which is not a very
> >open-minded frame of mind for people in a high-tech, fast-paced
> >industry.  Steve Frysinger

> ** what is more open-minded than programming because it is enjoyable
> rather than a duty?

What does this have to do with open-mindedness?  Open-mindedness
suggests a willingness to invest some (initially possibly unpleasant)
effort to learn others' approaches.  `Programming because it is
enjoyable' is simply self-indulgence.  (Though I hasten to add that I
hardly feel that I'm doing drudgework when working in Ada; indeed, I
feel it in C.)

> I have also seen projects for which C presented portability and many
> people could modify the code and understand it.  Microsoft develops
> all its applications in C, as do many other high- powered companies.
> Some programs for bank use have been written in C  and were amazingly
> efficient (the programmers probably hated it :-) ).  My code always
> passes lint checks with the "-b" and other tight options.

So what?

-----------

I think it's clear from the above that no one has learned anything from
this exchange.  Can't we avoid this sort of offensive and pointless
mudslinging?  There are many serious issues in programming languages,
including analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of different language
design approaches.  But PLEASE let your notes be <at least> civil and
well-informed!

	-s

Re: Who Wants Ada?

[Keith Shillington @seventh]

(Mark Galassi) and (Steve Frysinger) write:
>>> .... This is what the Ada people
>>> need to drive through their skulls: we don't want another COBOL or
>>> Pascal! (No personal offence to "Ada people".)
>>> 
>>> {These views are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }
>Since then Steve has written me a couple of letters, showing that he
>understands that C has more raw power and that the reasons for preferring
>Ada are managerial (large projects with many poeple require
>a language oriented towards tyranny rather than anarchy). This does
>confirm that nobody will program in Ada for the joy of it, but rather
>as a chore. 
> 		... etc.

Growl.  I have been programming in Ada for 4 years now.  Pascal for 6
before that.  C on and off for the entire time.

1:  Ada is NOT Pascal.  It may look similar to the novice, but the
    languages are significantly different.  Just like Pascal looks like C
    to the semi-novice, and we all know the languages are radically
    different.  (...and it certainly isn't COBOL, give me a break!)

2:  Programming in structured, highly typed languages is an incredible
    joy, I don't have to worry about making weird semantic errors; the
    compiler will point them out to me.  I can be highly expressive, and
    have a hope in Hades that someone else might understand my code
    without studying it for weeks.

3:  I agree that C has immense raw power; so do most assemblers.  In
    fact, for writing drivers and the like (given that I don't as of yet
    have a full-on-complete-with-all-the-hooks-and-switches-Ada-Compiler
    to play with) C is the language of choice.  I would counter to the
    claims of C's conciseness with APL.  I would counter to the claims
    of flexibility with LISP.  And I counter to programming joy with
    Ada.

I don't mean to offend, I mean to inform.

Keith Allan Shillington
Instructor in the structured languages: Pascal and Ada.