On Saturday 07 February 2009 19:20:30 Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > This is why I'm transitioning to Ada. > Ada was written as a standard long > before the first compiler was done, then the compilers had to meet the > standard. Ada programs are totally portable from one machine to another > (unless, of course, you import a non-Ada function that is not the same > on all machines). > > I still have Fortran77 code in production. > Fortran77 won't change. > In 15 years, Ada95 will still be Ada95. > > Think how long sh scripts have been around. You could take the first sh > script and run it today unmodified. When your software has a long > lifespan, there's a lot to be said for it to be written in a language > with a standard behind it.
Yay! for standards. It's one of the reasons I recommend C, which not only has a backing standard, but also standardized bindings to OS level interfaces. I wish the standard was freely available and under a free license, but the fact that it exists puts it ahead of languages without an established standard. It's good to have guarantees written is technical, but readable prose instead of the "correct" behavior being whatever the implementation did the first time someone complained it changed. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
