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: 103376,beb0b7471c6440e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-21 04:46:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BFB9481.F0A75713@earthlink.net> From: "Marc A. Criley" Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel References: <3BFA4095.8325D016@earthlink.net> <3BFA8AE3.48AE4F21@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:46:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.178.180.103 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1006346813 63.178.180.103 (Wed, 21 Nov 2001 04:46:53 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 04:46:53 PST X-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 04:42:40 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16788 Date: 2001-11-21T12:46:53+00:00 List-Id: "chris.danx" wrote: > > "Wes Groleau" wrote in message > > > 2. The particular post you complained about was not an > > "Ada is better" post. It was expressing disbelief > > that someone is touting improvements on C as something > > special when they have been proven in Ada and other > > languages for over 20 years. > > It was the tone of the post (which I may have taken the wrong way) that > seemed to convey the "mine's a superior language" belief. I appologise if > that's not Marc's intention. I make no appologies though, for highlighting > my distaste at the recent "trend". Wes' perception of my post is what I intended, just plain disbelief at how type-checking is being considered a new concept. As well as Marin's observation that features that Ada has been criticized about by anti-Ada zealots are now working their way into C-flavored languages and they're now considered A Good Thing... I certainly did not mean to convey an "Ada is superior, all other languages suck" tone. If I felt that, I wouldn't be able to write code in C, C++, Java, Ada 83, Ada 95, Pascal, Modula 2, Fortran, Tcl, Basic, and with a little refresher, COBOL and SNOBOL :-) I don't think it's going too far out on limb to say that if programmers were trained to an equal level of proficiency with Ada that they had with C, that programming in Ada versus C would already result in a noticeable drop in the defect rate, with the added benefit of proven, optimizing compilers available right now. Marc A. Criley Senior Staff Engineer Quadrus Corporation www.quadruscorp.com