ADA made me hate programming
in [ADA]
|
From: Wilson on 1 Jul 2010 17:16 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon(a)anon.org> wrote: >Plus: > Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie > > As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly > in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60." > He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C. > > C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11. If you doubt this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language. All of that ++ and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes. In particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were allowd for the data address. Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their addressing was direct. (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language copied from where. The two languages offer an interesting contrast.) Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have forgotten the details that led to the final result. Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people to understand what they did and how they did it. A good author creates much better than he/she knew at the time. Later he/she tries to explain what they did and why; in the process, he/she creates a new,logical story. The author beieves the new story and it sounds so good that almost evryone else does also. Human nature is a funny thing. Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Randy Brukardt on 1 Jul 2010 19:29 <anon(a)anon.org> wrote in message news:i0ii8c$1l7d$1(a)news.ett.com.ua... .... > For a school to receive a check from the DOD the prof. had to be > certified aka approved by the DOD to teach Ada until Nov 1998. > And until 1998 most schools did not teach Ada without that DOD > check. NYU use the checks to aid the creation of GPL Ada compiler > that we call GNAT. Amazing. RR Software sold large numbers of Ada compilers to schools and students from the mid 1980's until GNAT put us out of that business, and this is the first I ever heard of "checks from the DoD". (Most students bought the compilers dirrectly from us, like other textbooks.) Early GNAT work was funded as part of the Ada 9x project (something RRS wasn't particularly happy about, but we could hardly complain given our own work as part of that project). (But I'm no expert on early GNAT development.) Randy.
From: anon on 2 Jul 2010 02:07 In <i0j8df$i0s$1(a)munin.nbi.dk>, "Randy Brukardt" <randy(a)rrsoftware.com> writes: ><anon(a)anon.org> wrote in message news:i0ii8c$1l7d$1(a)news.ett.com.ua... >.... >> For a school to receive a check from the DOD the prof. had to be >> certified aka approved by the DOD to teach Ada until Nov 1998. >> And until 1998 most schools did not teach Ada without that DOD >> check. NYU use the checks to aid the creation of GPL Ada compiler >> that we call GNAT. > >Amazing. RR Software sold large numbers of Ada compilers to schools and >students from the mid 1980's until GNAT put us out of that business, and >this is the first I ever heard of "checks from the DoD". (Most students >bought the compilers dirrectly from us, like other textbooks.) > >Early GNAT work was funded as part of the Ada 9x project (something RRS >wasn't particularly happy about, but we could hardly complain given our own >work as part of that project). (But I'm no expert on early GNAT >development.) > > Randy. > > Rather you call it being sponsor, funded, or receiving a grant its all the same. Money Talks! As long as the DoD funded Ada and its projects, professors were happy to take the money. Once the funding vanished, those professors redirected their efforts to projects using newer whiz-bang languages that looked good when they submitted papers for publication. And a lot of college and universities require their professors to publish on current topics, which Ada is not high on that list. NYU Ada team just took it to the next level branching outside the university to become Adacore.
From: anon on 2 Jul 2010 03:01 In <op.ve6n2eysanduac(a)home-2l5xxxt7p3>, Wilson <leon.winslow(a)notes.udayton.edu> writes: >On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400, <anon(a)anon.org> wrote: > >>Plus: >> Reference: "The Development of the C Language" by Dennis M. Ritchie >> >> As for Algol, Ritchie states: "BCPL, B, and C all fit firmly >> in the traditional procedural family typified by Fortran and Algol 60." >> He never states that Algol or Fortran was used to build C. >> >> > >C is a structured assembly language for the DEC PDP 11. If you doubt >this, go back and examine the PDP 11 assembly language. All of that ++ >and -- are a standard part of the assembly language addressing modes. In >particular, all of those indirect references (pointers) were necessary >because the PDP 11 came with a 16 bit instruction set and only 8 bits were >allowd for the data address. Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level >language of the time omitted pointers because almost all of their >addressing was direct. (You might also want to compare C to Bliss another >sturctured assembly language for the PDP 11 and then ask which language >copied from where. The two languages offer an interesting contrast.) >Richie started on the PDP 7, but quickly moved to the PDP 11 and may have >forgotten the details that led to the final result. PDP-11 was just a type of Language Machine. One of many concepts that lead to the creation of the Lisp Machine in the late 70s and 80s. Just wish we could get a gpl version of the intel microcode compiler, then one could turn the intel CPU into a Language Machine. > >Also, before you quote Richie or any other author, you need to read a >peice by Isaak Asimov on how authors are the last people to understand >what they did and how they did it. A good author creates much better than >he/she knew at the time. Later he/she tries to explain what they did and >why; in the process, he/she creates a new,logical story. The author >beieves the new story and it sounds so good that almost evryone else does >also. Human nature is a funny thing. > Before quoting the late "Isaak Asimov" you should read "Janet Asimov" his wife on this concept. Janet is better than her husband in her vision of the future and mankind. Isaak suggested that without his wife, his visions would have imploded into a black hole. > > >Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: sjw on 2 Jul 2010 06:45
On Jul 1, 6:11 pm, a...(a)anon.org wrote: > Now, controlling a missile, robot, train (full size > or model) does not require the internet or any gui. They only require an I/O > port or access to memory mapped cell to communicated to the devices and > sensors. That might be true for, say, a wire-guided torpedo but I can see problems with airborne missiles. And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP to talk to the target tracking sensor computers? |