crm@duke.UUCP (10/12/83)
Hear, Hear!! for the Ada article from M. Banahan! For the last couple of years I have been talking about how much better life will be when the Revolooshun comes and we can get a decent Ada compiler. Rather to my surprize, there are even some that have been validated now -- something I feared was far into the future. Consider some of the advantages: -- explicit typing allowing the programmer to be sure that his high-order bits aren't being tromped on ... with an escape to allow you to do wierd stuff if you must (the "unsafe programming" package/type/proc, whatever it is). -- an explicit mechanism allowing the programmer to get access to data within a structure BY NAME or thru a reference, without worrying about what else becomes visible thereby. -- The ability to define new data types AND THE OPERATIONS THEREON, while maintaining the general form and syntax of the language. -- Explicit compiler directives defined as part of the standard. -- Protective measures like array bounds-checking which can be disconnected, so they are available for debugging, but removable for production code (if your application is that time-dependant and/or you are that foolish.) There are lots more, but I've got to do some work today. Now, if I could just figure out why the ASSERT statement went away... Charlie Martin ...!duke!crm
mike@taurus.UUCP (10/24/83)
Well, I knew that I was stirring a hornets' nest. Mentioning Ada in this
newsgroup is like riding a Honda on a Berdoo chapter run. At least it
stimulated some discussion.
First let me put the record straight. I ain't no theorist, arguing that Ada
might be better, if only you could get it. I've been writing in it for the
last eighteen months and *still* stick by my original comments. It suits me
a lot better than C, which I used for five years. There will always be people
whose tastes differ, and there will be some who feel differently from myself.
But at least let yourself try Ada, or read about it, before putting up a
chauvinist defence of a language that has obvious defects and omissions.
Remember, it was the discussion of just those problems that prompted my first
submission.
Just think on this: what is your opinion, as a C programmer, of the fanatic
who only knows assembler/BASIC, and then argues that there is nothing to touch
it? They react without thinking, from an inner conviction that what they know
is right, and nothing has an alternative or more suitable perspective on the
world. PLEASE don't fall into that way of (not) thinking. Look at the
possibilities, weigh them carefully, then speak. A minute of calm, informative
discussion beats a tirade of any length, (although the latter is often the
best way of starting things off).
If this debate is to be continued, then I suggest that it moves to net.lang,
to avoid offending the C bigots and those who do not wish to hear.
P.S. I still use C for bit twiddling - I might even use COBOL for a payroll
if I was unlucky enough to have to write one. You know where you can stick
Pascal, though!
--
Mike Banahan
{ENGLAND}!ukc!root44!taurus!mike