Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Robert Dewar]

h yes, and this thorough testing of the phone system by the public includes
we, the public, being kind enough to find the bug that brought down the AT&T
long lines for a period of time which was probably sufficient to exhaust their
quota for downtime for the next hundred years.

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!software.org!sm]

In article <1993Aug20.161703.40097@source.asset.com> vand@source.asset.com (Lau
rence VanDolsen) writes:
>Unfortunately, absolute absurdities achieve a presumed status of truth
>when repeated often enough without challenge.  That being the case, it
>may be our duty to NOT add those people to our kill files.
>

"Proof by repeated assertion."
            from Peopleware.
            

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Gregory Aharonian]

>Unfortunately, absolute absurdities achieve a presumed status of truth
>when repeated often enough without challenge.  That being the case, it
>may be our duty to NOT add those people to our kill files.
>--
>Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander
>My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them.
>Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com

    I assume you are reimbursing ASSET for use of their toll-free,
800-number taxpayer financed access to their repository and the Internet.
I pay for my access to the Internet and I assume you are as honest also.

For surely you agree that one of the absolute absurdities is that the
taxpayer's have to finance people too cheap to spend their own money to
acquire access to the Internet and an Ada repository, ASSET.  [Where you
are located is a local commercial Internet access supplier for which you
can get access for $20 a month].

-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexa]

In <CC0w2v.Iuo@crdnns.crd.ge.com> groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes Groleau x1240 C7
3-8) writes:

>Also, receiving a Turing award doesn't make a person infallible.
>C.A.R. Hoare also once said (paraphrase; someone please post the exact 
>quote):  One of the worst things that ever happened to our profession was
>the invention of symbolic debuggers, cross-reference tools, strong typing, etc
.
>because we let the tools find our errors instead of "doing it right the first
>time"  There is SOME truth to this, but most of us feel it's better to have
>a tool find all ten errors in a few minutes than to spend hours finding
>nine of them by eyeball.

Oddly, I believe that Djikstra (?) has also espoused such a position.
Something to the effect that developers shouldn't *have* compilers.
Test should have the compilers.  He apparently thinks (or thought)
that wanting to avoid having something kicked back by Test coupled
with the lack of compilers would cause developers to work harder to
avoid minor errors and prevent them from 'tweaking' code until it
passes the tests rather than designing and then implementing to the
design. 

Personally, I think what you'd get would be a black market in
compilers and syntax checkers, were you to try to implement such a
policy in the real world.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!v]

In article <CC0w2v.Iuo@crdnns.crd.ge.com> groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes Groleau 
x1240 C73-8) writes:
>For some time, the name of a certain individual has been in my killfile.
>This was a person I agreed with--I just don't have the time to read his
>long-winded "preaching to the choir"  Now I have the privilege of adding
>someone I DON'T agree with (TH).

Unfortunately, absolute absurdities achieve a presumed status of truth
when repeated often enough without challenge.  That being the case, it
may be our duty to NOT add those people to our kill files.

--
Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander
My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them.
Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Wes Groleau x1240 C73-8]

In article <1993Aug18.224236.24517@source.asset.com> vand@source.asset.com (Lau
rence VanDolsen) writes:
>In article <1385@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>>I suppose I'm supposed to believe that Hoare became more intelligent after
>>the original paper was presented.  I assume he was of middle age in 1980;  
>>people don't generally get more intelligent after about 40.
>>
>Oh PLEASE!!!!  Intelligence, the ability to learn and to apply learned
>information, is generally considered to be a constant for each
>individual and to be independent of that person's age, exceptions are
>associated with certain diseases and traumas.  
>
>There are, of course, individuals who wilfully stop learning, even
>though they retain the ability.

You suppose one of these has initials TH ?

>With respect to Mr. Hoare, it is reasonable to assume that he learned
>more about Ada between his earlier and later assertions.  .....

Especially since in 1980 when the comment was allegedly made, Ada didn't
really exist.  Several changes were made between then and the LRM-83.
(For example, "assert" is no longer a reserved word.)

Also, receiving a Turing award doesn't make a person infallible.
C.A.R. Hoare also once said (paraphrase; someone please post the exact 
quote):  One of the worst things that ever happened to our profession was
the invention of symbolic debuggers, cross-reference tools, strong typing, etc.
because we let the tools find our errors instead of "doing it right the first
time"  There is SOME truth to this, but most of us feel it's better to have
a tool find all ten errors in a few minutes than to spend hours finding
nine of them by eyeball.

------------------

For some time, the name of a certain individual has been in my killfile.
This was a person I agreed with--I just don't have the time to read his
long-winded "preaching to the choir"  Now I have the privilege of adding
someone I DON'T agree with (TH).

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwi]

In article <1385@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>I suppose I'm supposed to believe that Hoare became more intelligent after
>the original paper was presented.  I assume he was of middle age in 1980;  
>people don't generally get more intelligent after about 40.
>
Oh PLEASE!!!!  Intelligence, the ability to learn and to apply learned
information, is generally considered to be a constant for each
individual and to be independent of that person's age, exceptions are
associated with certain diseases and traumas.  

There are, of course, individuals who wilfully stop learning, even
though they retain the ability.

With respect to Mr. Hoare, it is reasonable to assume that he learned
more about Ada between his earlier and later assertions.  Occoms razor
would select this explanation over bribery et al.

--
Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander
My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them.
Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!progers]

In article <1385@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1993Aug16.113000.2845@sei.cmu.edu>, progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Pat 
Rogers) writes:
>*In article <1374@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>*>
>
> [deletia]
>
>*Mr Holden continues to amaze.  Having been shown on numerous occasions that
>*Hoare changed his mind and publicly approved of Ada, Mr. Holden still uses th
e
>*out of date Turing award speech.  
>
>One of the supposed beauties of Ada is that it cannot ever change.  The Ada 
>which Hoare claimed was unfit for any use with serious consequences is the
>same Ada which is out there now, to the best of my understanding.
>
>I suppose I'm supposed to believe that Hoare became more intelligent after
>the original paper was presented.  I assume he was of middle age in 1980;  
>people don't generally get more intelligent after about 40.
>
>Basically, the kind of statement made in that original paper, once made,
>cannot well be unmade.
>
>
>*Further, Mr. Holden accused Hoare of
>*"selling out" to the DoD for doing so!  
>
>That's not the way I recall it.  I have no real idea how they <got to> him.
>Considering the theoretically infinite supply of money behind Ada, bribery
>is a possibility.  Torture is another possibility...  I assume the man
>has family members who could have been kidnapped...  Brainwashing.....
>
>
>-- 
>Ted Holden      Evolutionism is to science
>HTE             As rapp is to music


The point here, sir, is that you can't have it both ways. Either you can
claim that he didn't change his mind, in which case you can use him as
ammunition, or you have to be honest and not do so.  By ignoring what you
had proven to you in the past, you make yourself out to be disreputable.  I
have to agree, however, that his change of mind did not receive nearly the
visibility of the Turing Award speech (natural under the circumstances).

Personally I wouldn't make comments about somebody with Hoare's stature unless
I had quite a bit more experience and credibility.

Pat Rogers
progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu

I have nothing to do with any organization named in my email address.

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[news]

In article <1993Aug16.113000.2845@sei.cmu.edu>, progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Pat R
ogers) writes:
*In article <1374@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
*>

*[stuff from a reputable person who probably doesn't want to be associated
*with the Ted persona deleted]

*>That's what the outside world has been saying all along.  You take STANFINS R
,
*>the FAA scandal,  all of the grief from the Adawoe BBS, all of the grief
*>which I've seen in journal articles for the last ten years every time anybody
*>tries to do anything at all non-trivial with Ada, all of the stories about
*>people spending ten hours working around Ada and one hour solving their
*>problem, Charles Hoare's warning not to use Ada for anything with potentially
*>serious consequences (speech upon receipt of Turing award, 1980), Jean
*>Ichbiah's washing his hands of the 9X effort, which is like imagining the
*>inventor and chief design engineer of the Edsel publically denouncing the
*>next-year's new-and-improved model, all of the stories about people writing
*>some little menu in Ada (to claim they'd used it) and then branching to
*>code in other languages (which works), thus guaranteeing non-portability...

*Mr Holden continues to amaze.  Having been shown on numerous occasions that
*Hoare changed his mind and publicly approved of Ada, Mr. Holden still uses the
*out of date Turing award speech.  

One of the supposed beauties of Ada is that it cannot ever change.  The Ada 
which Hoare claimed was unfit for any use with serious consequences is the
same Ada which is out there now, to the best of my understanding.

I suppose I'm supposed to believe that Hoare became more intelligent after
the original paper was presented.  I assume he was of middle age in 1980;  
people don't generally get more intelligent after about 40.

Basically, the kind of statement made in that original paper, once made,
cannot well be unmade.


*Further, Mr. Holden accused Hoare of
*"selling out" to the DoD for doing so!  

That's not the way I recall it.  I have no real idea how they <got to> him.
Considering the theoretically infinite supply of money behind Ada, bribery
is a possibility.  Torture is another possibility...  I assume the man
has family members who could have been kidnapped...  Brainwashing.....


-- 
Ted Holden      Evolutionism is to science
HTE             As rapp is to music

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[David Emery]

Ted Holden's idea of the free world is that everyone is free to
implement software the way Ted sees fit...
				dave

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[David Emery]

Ted Holden's idea of the free world is that everyone is free to
implement software the way Ted sees fit...
				dave

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Wes Groleau x1240 C73-8]

In article <1374@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Ted Holden      Evolutionism is to science
>HTE             As rapp is to music

                 As Ted Holden is to objectivity

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[news]

In article <16C2AEC77.C558172@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, C558172@mizzou1.missouri.e
du writes:
*In article <26292@alice.att.com>
*bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
* 
*>
*>On top of that, that common thread takes a problem with C and counts it as
*>a fatal flaw in C++.
*>
*>What catastrophic software induced failures, such as plane crashes and
*>telephone breakdowns, tells us is that no language is 100% safe and that
*>we can't rely 100% on any part of a system. the reliability of a system
*>depends on every part and ascribing an error to a particular part of the
*>total system is simply pin-pointing the error. The real responsibility
*>for the integrity of the system is in the people who produce the system
*>and not in any one part of the system.
*>
*>Should this argument be taken to mean that safety of language constructs
*>is irrellevant? Not at all; we want to have our languages as safe as is
*>reasonable. Exactly as we want every other component in the system as
*>safe and reliable as is reasonable. However, we can decide where in the
*>system to spend our limited resources. Focussing exclusively on the
*>programming language - or any other individual part of the system -
*>is absurd.
*>
*>Blaming a programming language for a specific systems failure, even a purely
*>software one is confusing the issue. We can make mistakes in any language.
*>We can write bad code in any language. We try not to and we try to choose
*>our languages with that in mind.
*>
*>        - Bjarne
*>
*While blaming the programming language for a _single_ specific system failure
*is not going to tell you if the language constructs are safe; a pattern of
*failures is a good indication of improper language design. 


That's what the outside world has been saying all along.  You take STANFINS R,
the FAA scandal,  all of the grief from the Adawoe BBS, all of the grief
which I've seen in journal articles for the last ten years every time anybody
tries to do anything at all non-trivial with Ada, all of the stories about
people spending ten hours working around Ada and one hour solving their
problem, Charles Hoare's warning not to use Ada for anything with potentially
serious consequences (speech upon receipt of Turing award, 1980), Jean
Ichbiah's washing his hands of the 9X effort, which is like imagining the
inventor and chief design engineer of the Edsel publically denouncing the
next-year's new-and-improved model, all of the stories about people writing
some little menu in Ada (to claim they'd used it) and then branching to
code in other languages (which works), thus guaranteeing non-portability...

There's a real easy solution:  just get rid of it.  Join the free world,
try living like reasonable people for a change.




-- 
Ted Holden      Evolutionism is to science
HTE             As rapp is to music

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Mark A Biggar]

In article <1993Aug13.060743.10754@celsiustech.se> bjkae@celsiustech.se (Bjorn 
Kallberg) writes:
>In article <26292@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>>Two days ago one of the new Swedish JAS-39 Gripen fighter planes crashed
>>during a low speed demonstration flight over central Stockholm. The problem
>>was an error in the control system. That system is programmed in Ada. The
>>pilot ejected safely and amazingly only a few people were injured when the
>>plane hit the ground.
>This is not true.
>1. The control system is not programmed in Ada. However, there are
>some plans, that a future replacement may be programmed in Ada.
>2. There has not yet been any statements from the crash investigators
>or anybody else with a technical insight on the reasons for the crash.
>However, there have been numerous statements by others.

Actually there is, the pilot has said that he heard at least one
circuit-breaker blow just before he lost control of the plane, so it
may well be a purely electrical or machanical problem and not
software at all. (This is from a recent RISKS-DIGEST)

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl.loral.com

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Bjorn Kallberg]

In article <26292@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>
>
>Two days ago one of the new Swedish JAS-39 Gripen fighter planes crashed
>during a low speed demonstration flight over central Stockholm. The problem
>was an error in the control system. That system is programmed in Ada. The
>pilot ejected safely and amazingly only a few people were injured when the
>plane hit the ground.
>
This is not true.

1. The control system is not programmed in Ada. However, there are
some plans, that a future replacement may be programmed in Ada.

2. There has not yet been any statements from the crash investigators
or anybody else with a technical insight on the reasons for the crash.
However, there have been numerous statements by others.


/Bjorn Kallberg
(also an eyewitness)

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Michael Feldman]

In article <26292@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>
[deletia]
>
>PS For solid information about C++ I recommend
>  B.Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language (2nd edition), Addison-Wesley
>  B.Stroustrup: The History of C++, Proc HOPL2 Conf. ACM Sigplan Notices, Mar'
93.
>They don't compare C++ to Ada but they ought to be able correct some of the
>misconceptions and hype that is floating around.

For those of you who think authors are tacky to push their own stuff,
I'll take the liberty of pushing Bjarne's stuff for him.  :-)

It's good.  Especially the HOPL-II paper. (The text is good too, but it's 
just a text.)

I'm glad Bjarne is posting to this group frequently and trying to stay
above the fray. Let's emulate him.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Michael Feldman]

In article <24ep7t$17o@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwi
n) writes:
>Dave Willett comments:
>"Every language has its application domain."
>
>Amen.
>
>For air traffic control or similar applications where reliability and
>correctness is of overriding importance, use Ada. If you want to get down
>close to the metal, use C. C++ overcomes many of the weaknesses of C and
>allows you into the world of efficient OOP. If you want to work with pure
>thought, there's Alan Perlis's favorite--Lisp. For scientific codes,
>FORTRAN might be best (my wife uses it). Etc. Please don't flame me, but I
>like to use the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

Hmmm. Two of the most sucessful non-defense application domains besides 
ATC are commercial airliner avionics and high-speed train control.
Boeing started using Ada on the new-generation airliners (747-400,
77, 737-300 (?)) because it liked it, not from any mandate. And
Airbus, Beech, Fokker, Tupolev, and Ilyushin are also going with Ada.
Surely avionics gets "close to the metal", as you described it.

The French high-speed rail system (300 km/h, many thousands of passengers
daily) is heavily Ada, as is the nearly-finished Channel Tunnel. Is this
realtime enough? Nuclear power plant control? Which apps are closer to
the metal?

I sorta think that we should stop generalizing and trying to stick
languages in pigeonholes, don't you? The generalizations mostly don't
work very well, do they?

By presenting these facts, I am not arguing Ada's superiority over 
anything. I am tired and bored with the language wars and would prefer
to talk technical here. Periodically I post interesting non-defense
stories, not to prove Ada's superiority, but to illustrate how many
companies who had the choice, chose Ada willingly for serious work,
realtime and otherwise. They are happy with the choice.

If you think they made a poor choice, that is your privilege; 
it's a free country. _They_ think they made the right one for their jobs.

Sheesh. Can we get back to work now? :-)

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Bjarne Stroustrup]

Under the heading

	Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar @ Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences) wr
ites

 > ah yes, and this thorough testing of the phone system by the public includes
 > we, the public, being kind enough to find the bug that brought down the AT&T
 > long lines for a period of time which was probably sufficient to exhaust the
ir
 > quota for downtime for the next hundred years.

referring to the infamous bug in a C program (assuming that it really was
a C bug, which I don't for a fact).

Two days ago one of the new Swedish JAS-39 Gripen fighter planes crashed
during a low speed demonstration flight over central Stockholm. The problem
was an error in the control system. That system is programmed in Ada. The
pilot ejected safely and amazingly only a few people were injured when the
plane hit the ground.

Assume for the moment that the assertions of a software failure that I
have heard are true. Does that mean that Ada is a bad programming language?
Does that mean that Ada programming is unsafe? Does that mean that I have
to express fear of dealing with ``gadgets'' programmed in Ada? Does that
mean I have to write to my congressman demanding the exclusive use of
another, safer, language for all critical applications?

	Of course not!

However, did I accurately describe a common thread of argument against C++
in this newsgroup?

	Of course.

On top of that, that common thread takes a problem with C and counts it as
a fatal flaw in C++. 

What catastrophic software induced failures, such as plane crashes and
telephone breakdowns, tells us is that no language is 100% safe and that
we can't rely 100% on any part of a system. the reliability of a system
depends on every part and ascribing an error to a particular part of the
total system is simply pin-pointing the error. The real responsibility
for the integrity of the system is in the people who produce the system
and not in any one part of the system.

Should this argument be taken to mean that safety of language constructs
is irrellevant? Not at all; we want to have our languages as safe as is
reasonable. Exactly as we want every other component in the system as
safe and reliable as is reasonable. However, we can decide where in the
system to spend our limited resources. Focussing exclusively on the
programming language - or any other individual part of the system -
is absurd.

Blaming a programming language for a specific systems failure, even a purely
software one is confusing the issue. We can make mistakes in any language.
We can write bad code in any language. We try not to and we try to choose
our languages with that in mind.

	- Bjarne

PS For solid information about C++ I recommend
  B.Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language (2nd edition), Addison-Wesley
  B.Stroustrup: The History of C++, Proc HOPL2 Conf. ACM Sigplan Notices, Mar'9
3.
They don't compare C++ to Ada but they ought to be able correct some of the
misconceptions and hype that is floating around.

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Robert I. Eachus]

    Hmmm, the goal I have heard from them (.999999 availability) works
out to about 30 seconds per year.  At that reliability there should be
a total of one hour of down-time per 114 years.  I think the three big
recent problems accounted for a millennium or so of that... (Your
milage will vary depending on which failures affected you.)


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Dave Griffith]

In article <24bjko$obe@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry  
Erwin) writes:
> Would someone kindly explain to me why the Ada proponents assumed I was
> bashing Ada, while the Ada opponents assumed I was bashing the
> alternative? Are things -->that<-- polarized? 
> 

Large-scale impending budget cuts will do that to a viewpoint...

--
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Biological Sciences Division               dave@delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu
"The faults in bad software can be so subtle as to be practically theological"
--Bruce Sterling

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!venice!gumby.dsd.trw.com!truff]

Would someone kindly explain to me why the Ada proponents assumed I was
bashing Ada, while the Ada opponents assumed I was bashing the
alternative? Are things -->that<-- polarized? 

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Wes Groleau x1240 C73-8]

In article <1993Aug10.185341.10437@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com 
(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Why are there so many Ada proponents who can't 'defend' their language
>except by bashing others?  That approach seems to reflect more on Ada
>than it does on the languages that most of the (mis)statements get
>made about.

1. I think it reflects more on human nature than on Ada.  I've heard the same
sort of thing from fans of several other languages.

2. On the other hand, while C and C++ have their advantages over Ada in some
areas, they happen to have disadvantages in areas that Ada fans think are very
important.  (If they didn't think so, they wouldn't be Ada fans.)

3. Moreover, it is definitely true that an unfortunately large percentage of
C programmers consciously or unconsciously write VERY obscure and/or unsafe
code.  This is not the fault of the language, but not all attackers realize
that.  And yes, it can be done in Ada and IS DONE, even by some of the people
that attack C for that very "problem".

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Tim Barrios]

In article <24asmh$nki@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwi
n) writes:
>The phone network software has been thoroughly tested out by use by the
>general public. Interestingly, the voice switching software used by the
>enroute facilities is being written in (mostly) Pascal, which is a
>reasonable compromise position between C and Ada. And error recovery,
>fault tolerance, and maintainability/availability are key requirements.

Not only the enroute facilities, but every GTE local telephone exchange uses 
a switching system that is completely written in Pascal (a somewhat Ada-like
Pascal).  The decision to use Pascal over C (as AT&T does) was made about
15 years ago, primarily due to the real-time and reliability requirements
of telephone switching systems.  Safety features such as run-time range
checking are among the reasons for this.

-- 
Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
Internet: barriost@agcs.com
UUCP: ...!{ihlps.att.com | att | ncar!noao!enuucp}!gtephx!barriost
voice: (602) 582-7101        fax: (602) 581-4390

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[david.c.willett]

>From article <1993Aug10.185341.10437@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, by mccall@mksol.dseg.
ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539):
> In <2465ea$gjg@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) wri
tes:
> 
	{Deletia}
> 
> Why are there so many Ada proponents who can't 'defend' their language
> except by bashing others?  That approach seems to reflect more on Ada
> than it does on the languages that most of the (mis)statements get
> made about.
	
	I've found myself guilty of that when speaking to members of
	an "extreme" language culture.  I've been exposed to two,
	both languages begin with the same letter, and one of them
	was Cobol :^).

	The difficulty I usually have is convincing the other 
	folks to separate "architectural" concerns from language
	syntax.  For instance, Ada tasks aren't the same thing as
	"child" processes, but in a Unix shop, that's how tasking
	is often viewed.  Generally, I struggle to be fair and try
	to roll with the punches.
> 
> How often do you hear a proponent of C++ justify his choice of
> language purely on the basis of how disgusting some other language is?
> This is a 'disease' that appears to be pretty much a product of the
> Ada world.  *I* don't think Ada is so bad that this is the only
> 'defense' that can be made of it, and it's not even my favorite
> language.  Why so many who choose Ada first who can't find anything
> better to say about Ada than that C is bad?

	I agree this strategy is a mistake.  It's confrontational and
	doesn't recognize that in some ways C is superior to anything,
	including Ada.  To paraphrase a proverb, "Every language has 
	its application domain."  Having said that, I have to say that
	some C disciples get my back up when they contend that "All you
	need to do is enforce good programming standards/discipline and
	you can do that in C".  They miss the point that Ada is trying
	to use the compiler to enforce such conventions.  The jury is
	still out on whether that's a good idea, but it's an idea which
	demands a fair hearing that I don't think it's getting.
>
	{Fred's sig deleted -- here's mine}
#######                                           ##########          ######
 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

Shoulda been a cowboy                      Stealin' a young girl's heart
Shoulda learned to rope & ride             Just like Gene & Roy
Wearing my six-shooter                     Singin' those camp fire songs
Ridin' my pony -- on a cattle drive!       Shoulda been a cowboy...

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[Harry Erwin]

In article <1993Aug10.185341.10437@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <2465ea$gjg@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
>writes:
>
>>I agree with Mike Feldman on the appropriate applications for Ada. The
>>thought of man-rated application (such as air traffic control) programed
>>in C gives me the cold shudders. 
>
>Well, stand prepared to shudder, then.  First, what do you think
>everything was written in before there was Ada, Sanskrit?  Secondly,
>an ATC facility may have its software written in Ada, but it's talking
>over a phone network whose switching software was written in C/C++.

The phone network software has been thoroughly tested out by use by the
general public. Interestingly, the voice switching software used by the
enroute facilities is being written in (mostly) Pascal, which is a
reasonable compromise position between C and Ada. And error recovery,
fault tolerance, and maintainability/availability are key requirements.

My opinions only, not those of TRW or the FAA.
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[fred j mccall 575-3539]

In <2465ea$gjg@truffula.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) write
s:

>I agree with Mike Feldman on the appropriate applications for Ada. The
>thought of man-rated application (such as air traffic control) programed
>in C gives me the cold shudders. 

Well, stand prepared to shudder, then.  First, what do you think
everything was written in before there was Ada, Sanskrit?  Secondly,
an ATC facility may have its software written in Ada, but it's talking
over a phone network whose switching software was written in C/C++.

Why are there so many Ada proponents who can't 'defend' their language
except by bashing others?  That approach seems to reflect more on Ada
than it does on the languages that most of the (mis)statements get
made about.

How often do you hear a proponent of C++ justify his choice of
language purely on the basis of how disgusting some other language is?
This is a 'disease' that appears to be pretty much a product of the
Ada world.  *I* don't think Ada is so bad that this is the only
'defense' that can be made of it, and it's not even my favorite
language.  Why so many who choose Ada first who can't find anything
better to say about Ada than that C is bad?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benefits

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!venice!gumby.dsd.trw.com!truff]

I agree with Mike Feldman on the appropriate applications for Ada. The
thought of man-rated application (such as air traffic control) programed
in C gives me the cold shudders. 

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Working on Freeman nets....