Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!meaddata!gordon
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Packing, Ordering, and Rearranging
Message-ID: <1683@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 12:57:07 GMT
References: <1990Sep21.130531.7437@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <77210007@hpcljms.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@meaddata.com
Reply-To: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 59


In article <77210007@hpcljms.HP.COM>, brians@hpcljms.HP.COM (Brian
Sullivan) writes:
|> >>>... A standard is useful only if it is widely accepted.  It cannot
|> >>>become widely accepted without support from compiler writers.  Trying
|> >>>to ram things down the compiler writers' throats with standards simply
|> >>>does not work; all it does is eliminate the usefulness of the standard.
|> >>
|> >>I offer the Ada language as an absolute counterexample to your argument.

The DoD contracts I worked on never used Ada.  In fact, of the proposals I saw,
only one was in Ada.  (I no longer work in the DoD contracting arena.)

|>   Too bad your not aware.  Ada is a far better language that C ever will
|> be.  Unfortunately it never acquire the critical mass of devoted fanatics,
|> such as yourself, that is apparently needed for widespread use and approval.
|> I am quite happy with the precise specification and enforcement of the Ada
|> standard, where as the C language didn't even evolve into a standard until
|> quite late in is life.  Unfortunately for ANSI C there was quite alot of
|> commonly use pratices that made the resultant language less useable that
|> what might have otherwise been produced, so now we are stuck with a
|> language that is just a series of compiler-writer hacks.
|> 
|>   I also appears that C++ is heading down the same path, too bad I had
|> been hoping for better.
|> 

There appear to be fanatics on both sides.  Sigh.

Comparing C and Ada is a little bit unfair.  

C allows a programmer to have close control over the underlying hardware.  
This is a little dangerous and requires responsible programmers.  It results
in very fast code.  C is basically an assembler with a good macro library. :-)

Ada was written to increase protability, promote package reuse, and help
minimize potential bugs (through strong typing, etc).  It is acceptable for
embedded systems ONLY if the compiler implementation is of good quality.  I
have seen Ada compilers that produce poor performing systems and I have seen
compilers that produce better code than optimized VAX FORTRAN.

C++ is an object-oriented language that capitalizes on the large base of C
programmers.

Ada is an object-based language.  It does not support inheritance.


IMHO, there appears to be a need for all three languages.  They all have
benefits and flaws.  Lets not turn this into a religious war.


Trivia:
The company I used to work for was one of the four finalists in the Ada 
competition (blue proposal) and still performs USAF compiler validations.

Can anyone guess the company?  (Its in any Ada book.)


-- Gordon     (gordon@meaddata.com)