Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/12/30/21:15:06
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote in message <84ge82$29fi$2 AT news DOT gate DOT net>...
>In article <386998e5 AT news1 DOT jps DOT net>, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva AT jps DOT net> wrote:
>>Ada was actually designed to meet a Department of Defense requirement for
a
>>language to develop very large and reliable embedded programs. The
current
>>version, Ada95, is an excellent general-purpose language that can be
>>compared in scope to C++, while making it much easier to write correct,
>>error-free code -- hence its frequent use in aircraft systems, traffic
>>control, medical equipment, etc. It's also got built-in concurrency.
>
> Ada is a nightmare. While it may look good on paper it sucks
>for embedded programs. True it was designed by committe for the
>military but it does not comprare with C.
> Many military programs because ot the nature of a high reliabilty
>being required do not use ADA. The intent at one time years ago
>was to go to ADA with new projects but it has not worked as
>advertised and is waste of money.
>Lets hope it dies a quick death.
>Also the newer ada compliers are really based on C++ compliers
>and there is really nothing ADA can do that C or C++ can not do
>better.
Since this is not the right forum for such a "discussion", I'll only post
this one reply, then leave it be. Your comments are pure nonsense. I've
programmed embedded systems in C for 20 years, and Ada does many, many
things better (can't actually think of anything C does better...). If you
really think you can support your view, come by comp.lang.ada and have at
it. I'll leave you with one little tidbit, a table from an independent
paper (Lawlis) on programming language evaluation:
http://www.adaic.org/docs/reports/lawlis/5.htm#t2
Mike
- Raw text -