Re: Ada compared to C++

[hathawa2@muvms6.wvnet.edu (Mark S. Hathaway)]

> In article <1994Oct6.133002.1@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com>,
> gamache@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com writes:

>> In article <cppCx50GD.G0y@netcom.com>, cpp@netcom.com (Robin Rowe) writes:
 
>>> Schonberg says:

>>> The comparison of programming languages is in part a subjective 
>>> affair.... 
 
>> This is true. However, I think the ES paper suffers from being too 
>> hypothetical in nature. It contains no realistic C++ code examples. 
>> Many assertions were made with so little basis that I couldn't 
>> imagine how the author's point would translate into an actual 
>> design. Anyone can prove anything in the abstract. Not having 
>> concrete examples was the hardest part in responding to the ES 
>> paper. If the topic is which software language can better support 
>> software safety and reliability, then I think it is incumbent upon 
>> the author to actually show some safe and unsafe code so the danger 
>> can be seen clearly.
 
> I don't know ES nor have I read the referenced paper.  However, I choose to
> disagree here anyway.  While there is a chance that the readability and
> understandability of his paper could be improved via use of appropriate
> examples, was it truely "incumbent" upon the author to show such?  I think
> not. In all likelyhood for ANY such example, some clever C/C++ programmer
> could readily find a way in which the "unsafe" code could be coded "safely".

Why should any modern high-level language allow a programmer to code
something that will be "unsafe" or "dangerous".  Weren't the terse
grammar and compiler designed (in part) to prevent that?

Which of the more modern languages WILL allow "unsafe" or "dangerous"
code to be written, compiled and run?  Why is it allowed?  If there's
no way to prevent certain kinds of dangers, how can they be limited?

  Ada?
  C++?
  Modula-3?
  Eiffel?
  Smalltalk?
  (other)_____________?

Why is it allowed?

> Then the arguement quickly degrades into one over the example, not the
> point.  The point, which I infer you may have entirely missed (no disrespect
> intended), is whether or not the software industry in masse uses the safe or
> unsafe approach. Ada promotes many more safe constructs by disallowing as
> many unsafe constructs as possible.  (Comments continued after one of your
> examples).

Are you suggesting that if "safe" techniques are promoted (though not
enforced) then slang will never be spoken?

<snipped talk about bounds checking on arrays>
 
> One final comment.  I am an Ada advocate (Team Ada!).  However, no retract
> that "however", I am an advocate, period.  I have no illusions about Ada's 
> percentage of the market as compared/contrasted to C/C++ huge share.  
> Many individuals seem compelled to feel that technical considerations alone 
> should drive market share.  I find this thinking nonsensical.  Too many
> examples throughout history provide counterexamples (consider: how can a PC
> be a market leader when it's OS is all kludged around a 640Kbyte upper
> limit!). Thus, my comments are intended solely in the interest of generating
> worthwhile (hopefully) discussion.

Never OVER-estimate the American public.  They thought IBM meant "I'll Never
Be Fired if I buy it" and things went downhill from there.

"Why is it so hot in here and why am I in this handbasket?"  -- ?
"There's a sucker born every minute."  -- P. T. Barnum 


Mark S. Hathaway      <hathawa2@muvms6.mu.wvnet.edu>