NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/lang/ada/3766

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.3 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:11:58 GMT
Lines: 54

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Rogers) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

>>Just recentrly, I posted an article to comp.lang.c in which I listed a
>>number of errors in a textbook.  The textbook is about data structures
>>in C.  The authors understand data structures very well. . . . .

>    <deleted>

>>I believe that Ada is a bigger language than C.  Both languages have "dark
>>corners".  But there seems to be a tradition of Ada compilers being picky
>>and C compilers letting it all hang out.  With all due respect to "The
>>Emperor's New Clothes", which I loved when it came out, I am now _more_
>>frightened about critical software being written in C or C++ than in Ada.
>>
>>My current impression is that Ada textbooks tend to be more accurate in
>>the claims they make about what is or is not valid Ada, and tend to have
>>a higher level view of the software process, than C books.  Is this an
>>illusion, due to my knowing C relatively better than I know Ada?
>>

>I'm not sure this is true; the Barnes Ada book has LOTS of examples that
>violate the LRM.  I think perhaps it's more of a way of teaching than
>a symptom of the particular language.  In my CS education, many instructors
>(and books) adopted a method of presenting a narrow version of the language
>as though it were the whole truth, then expanding it in steps with each
>new lesson; perhaps under the theory that this would make it easier to
>grasp the wider concepts.

This is why I don't approve of Ada as a first language.  The language
is simply too large and powerful, and when you try to teach
restrictive subsets you wind up teaching things that are 'wrong' in
the broader scope.  C++ has this same problem, along with a problem
that it 'inherits' from C.  The biggest problem with C isn't the size
of the language (it's actually fairly small), but that so much of the
power and expressiveness of the language relies on things that
beginning students typically have a great deal of trouble with;
pointers and recursion.  When you add the somewhat arcane syntax
required for declaring complex types and all the safety of an
unshielded buzz saw, C is an even worse choice for a first language
than Ada is.

I think students would be best served by using something INTENDED for
teaching, which is relatively safe and small.  That pretty much means
Pascal.  Some schools have had good luck with LISP/SCHEME style
languages, but I'm not sure how easy they are to deal with as first
languages, either.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.