ADA made me hate programming
in [ADA]
|
From: Non scrivetemi on 2 Jul 2010 11:54 > Fortran, Cobol and every other higher level language of the time omitted > pointers because almost all of their addressing was direct. I don't know what you meant with this sentence. It was simply the case that pointers weren't provided in the base language because they were unnecesssary. This is not the same as "all of their addressing was direct". In fact pointers were used by the compiled code for argument passing etc. but they were not an abstraction that was required at the source level. BTW since this is comp.lang.ada where people are reminded Ada is a proper name and not an acronym, you should be reminded FORTRAN and COBOL *are* acronyms and should be capitalised as I wrote and not as you wrote.
From: Georg Bauhaus on 2 Jul 2010 12:10 On 02.07.10 17:54, Non scrivetemi wrote: > BTW since this is comp.lang.ada where people are reminded Ada is a proper > name and not an acronym, you should be reminded FORTRAN and COBOL *are* > acronyms and should be capitalised as I wrote and not as you wrote. Does capitalization apply to old FORTRAN only? ISO/IEC writes "Fortran" these days.
From: Peter C. Chapin on 2 Jul 2010 12:55 On 2010-07-02 12:10, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Does capitalization apply to old FORTRAN only? ISO/IEC writes "Fortran" > these days. I believe starting with Fortran 90 there was an official decision to spell the name as "Fortran." Thus FORTRAN refers to versions of the language before Fortran 90. I don't have a reference for this but I used to lurk on comp.lang.fortran and I believe it was discussed there by people who seemed to know what they were talking about. Peter
From: anon on 2 Jul 2010 14:04 In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b(a)32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright(a)mac.com> writes: >On Jul 1, 6:11=A0pm, a...(a)anon.org wrote: > >> Now, controlling a missile, robot, train (full size >> or model) does not require the internet or any gui. =A0They 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? The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign that would love to get it hands on a missle. You ever heard of terrorist. So, to control a missle on the internet is treason type of programming. The guidance system may use GPS but that just a series of numbers from transmitted by a group of satellites through a set of radio frequences that is finally transfer into the system by a serial/parallel/"memory mapped" port. And that's not an IP or the internet connection. Then during a short time after launch the missile might have a kill switch but that would be secure radio or laser frequence with another port on the system.
From: Simon Wright on 2 Jul 2010 14:53
anon(a)att.net writes: > In <4205a7a1-e193-4057-b19c-7ae4a3122a1b(a)32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, sjw <simon.j.wright(a)mac.com> writes: >>And what makes you think that the missile launch computer won't use IP >>to talk to the target tracking sensor computers? > > The internet contains a swamp of hackers both domestic and foreign > that would love to get it hands on a missle. You ever heard of > terrorist. So, to control a missle on the internet is treason type of > programming. I said "IP" which means "Internet Protocol". Never for one moment did I suggest that such a system would be connected to the Internet. If two computers need to communicate and IP over Ethernet is suitable (and that includes an awful lot of military systems) we would be wasting the taxpayers' money and our own limited resources to roll our own comms stack when we can get one off the shelf. |