Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Language Wars Message-ID: <22127@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 3 Jun 91 19:04:36 GMT References: <1991May28.173812.4183@colorado.edu> <1258@cbmger.UUCP> <1991May31.181153.584@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 34 In article eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > Incidently, from experience, a 100,000 line program in Ada is a >300,000 line C monstrosity (or a 1,000,000 line COBOL monster). When >you get to large programs, Ada is a necessity. I think it's more correct to say that a truely modular language is necessary when writing large programs. The better the modularization, the easier it gets to write and maintain large programs. Certainly Ada or Modula2 are better suited to this than C, which provides very little in the way of hard encapsulation, etc. But going to a true object oriented language like C++ is an even better alternative when building large systems. And probably a little more natural for the average hardcore C programmer. The only problem with C++ itself is that, in many cases, it lets you be as sloppy as C does, since most C programs will compile in C++. You have to design in C++ to get any of its advantages. Ada or M2 will force the issue, certainly a boon to the undisciplined. Though I think any decent programmer can adapt to the verbosity of Ada or any of the Wirth languages without too much pain. It usually takes me a day or two of working in a language to get all my mental processes switched over (assuming I know the language already and just haven't used it in some time). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.