home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.netxpress.com!root
- From: ghporter@NetXpress.com (Glenn H. Porter)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:18:40 GMT
- Organization: Digital Alpha Server NetXpress.com
- Message-ID: <4iroks$j1b@ferrari.NetXpress.com>
- References: <4iah20$p7k@saba.info.ucla.edu> <DoD6CB.3Kq@hkuxb.hku.hk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-18.netxpress.com
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- I missed the original post on this thread, but I have a couple of
- observations about ADA vs C.
-
- First, ADA was invented so that DoD could have a single, maintainable
- sourcecode language for all _embedded_ computing systems (check the
- legislation on this--embedded systems are specifically stated in the
- statute). At the time the requirement was stated, C was a private
- language, and the whole community was awash with different,
- incompatable versions of a number of languages that we'd call "stupid"
- or worse today.
-
- Second, a large number of customers in DoD have missed the meaning of
- "embedded systems", and therein lies the crux of the I/O problem. An
- embedded system is a computer that, say, runs a targeting computer on
- a fighter, or the navigation system on a missile. The I/O is hardware
- dependent, but the software must not be, because the system may be
- upgraded at any time for new functionality or differing missions or
- threats. There are _no_ embedded desktop applications. I've seen an
- application that was embedded but ran on an Intel-based laptop. This
- program was not much more than a text processor that told
- microprocessor-controlled radios what to do and told the operator what
- they said in return. The silly thing was almost 200k of executable!
- But it was maintainable, and that's the key.
-
- That said, I think ADA is a great language for applications that use
- hardware I/O, because the hard part is taken care of by the hardware.
- The meaning of the input, and the outputs needed are the business of
- the programmer.
-
- Finally, the replies on this thread seem to have degenerated to the
- level of C programmers snapping at each other. How does that fit in
- on the thread?
-
- Glenn
-
-