home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
- From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 27 Feb 1996 13:01:35 -0800
- Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- Message-ID: <4gvrffINNlqo@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <4gaa6l$8mk@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4gd94r$isu@mack.rt66.com> <1996Feb22.005518.13396@leeweyr.sccsi.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca
-
- In article <1996Feb22.005518.13396@leeweyr.sccsi.com>,
- Bill Lee <bill@leeweyr.sccsi.com> wrote:
- >In article <4gd94r$isu@mack.rt66.com> egf@Rt66.com (Ed Franks) writes:
- > .
- > .
- >>
- >>Yes, but you are not. Meanwhile, the software for the Mission Control Center
- >>(MOC) at NASA Johnson Space Center is being rewritten in C++, not ADA.
- >>
- >
- >Wrong. C, not C++. And serious, grievous error whichever. Software
- >which has life-threatening consequences should not be written in
- >an intrinsically unsafe language.
-
- What is intrinsically unsafe about C? I could write a strict,
- standard-conforming, anally-retentive program in any language that could kill
- people (maliciously, of course).
-
- Software which has life-threatening consequences shoud not be left to something
- that sacrifices intimacy with hardware for some higher purpose that has more to
- do with bureaucracy than anything else.
-
- And it should certainly not be written in some poorly standardized language,
- for which no two implementations are in agreement. C is governed by an
- ISO standard, which, if adhered to, lets a strictly conforming program
- translated by a strictly conforming implementation yield well-defined results.
-
- I don't think you can say the same for Ada or C++.
- --
-
-