Re: [sc] Reminder about the "Embedded Muse"

Re: [sc] Reminder about the "Embedded Muse"

From: Mike Elliott <hbrednek_at_xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:59:05 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik_-FKQQUgFMBK1Z1_NzyLdHy-q_H06O=Jki7vD@xxxxxx>
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Peter Bernard Ladkin
<ladkin@xxxxxx> wrote:

> So the next question is: how is the way in which Java handles possible
> variable aliasing better than that in which these issues may be handled in,
> say, Ada or Modula?

As far as being a language lawyer, my background is more Ada than Java
(I used to be in charge of Ada compiler validation, back when
validation through ACVC tests was a big deal).  I would say, having
looked at hundreds of thousands of lines of Ada, that I have had a
disappointingly frequent experience in finding the
UNCHECKED_CONVERSION generic used in production Ada code.

I agree that this is often a mark of poor craftsmanship and
unhesitatingly discourage its use, but it is there, just the same, and
as I understand Java, there is no equivalent in Java.

As for Modula, I couldn't say as I'm unaware of any significant work
being done in Modula.  Back in the 80s, I remember working with Modula
2 and in the 90s with Modula 3.  I miss them both, but they're at this
point moribund and no longer of any significance.  I don't recall
Modula itself ever having any impact other than as a model for other
programming languages.

> And if it isn't better, why not?

I'ts better.

Mike Elliott    mre@xxxxxx
Received on Mon 21 Mar 2011 - 05:59:11 GMT