LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  June 1999

TEAM-ADA June 1999

Subject:

Anti-C Arguments

From:

Richard Stuckey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Richard Stuckey <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:17:17 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines) , richard.vcf (14 lines)

Before we start scrabbling for case histories & reference studies to
support Ada, perhaps we should not forget what we are fighting
*against*!  Here is a brief case history of a project I spent a year on:

-----

The company I worked for at the time (which must remain nameless, to
avoid any legal complications), had a lucrative deal with another
company to develop a commercial application, but rather than invest in
doing it properly (horror!), they bought in an absolutely *crap* C
package from a Taiwanese company (I remember when the "Made In Taiwan"
label on a product was a sure-fire warning!), then thought that it could
be easily modified and extended.

To make it worse, the man who came with the package (its original
designer), and who was in technical charge, was 25 years out-of-date. To
him, everything was a macro: there were 7000 macros in the package (out
of 130K SLOC); there were macros 300 lines long; there were macros
expanding macros down to a depth of 10 or 12 levels; there were macros
which had to be defined before expanding other macros to give "unbound"
global variables to be used by them; there were macros which were
defined, undefined, and redefined in different header files - so making
the order of header file inclusion critical.  MACROS MACROS MACROS!!  He
wasn't happy with C, though: "I don't know why when people change
things, they make them worse. I remember when I was using BCPL, the
wonderful system of macros I had then.". Also, all data and functions
were global ("I really don't see much difference between internal
functions and external ones"), and he didn't like individual header
files (thought there should just be a few giant ones instead - was
horrified when I introduced individual ones for the new modules we
wrote!); plus there was a massively over-complex API  (multiple layers
of macros, of course) to access what was a not-very-complicated data
model (he optimized this model in some places to save a single word of
storage!); plus he did all his own store management (did not trust
malloc & free) - except that his pointer arithmetic was generally wrong,
resulting in store corruption all the time.  Much of the data in the
data model was densely packed, needing hand-written bit masks, and &, |
and shift operators to access it - this resulted in multitudes of macros
defining the masks and the read/set operations.

Everyone on the project except him said it was going to be a disaster
(early on, I gave the company management a 27-point list of what was
wrong, and *told* them it would be a disaster), but nothing was ever
done - so it crawled on for many months, until finally they pulled the
plug on it. It cost the company over 1M GBP, and the customer 1/2M - yet
we had all said that it could be rewritten from scratch faster and
cheaper!

Now, at the very least, if Ada had been used instead, we would have had
the following advantages:

1) NO macros - so we could have used a debugger to help us (you just try
getting a C debugger to single-step through macro-expansion which has
resulted in a line of source code several thousand characters long); and
everything semantically checked at its declaration (instead of endlessly
finding bugs in macros according to the context of their expansion).  It
sometimes took myself and one of the other developers, working together,
a full *day* to make progress of half a dozen lines of code using the
macro API.

2) interfaces between modules *required* to be complete and correct -
else it won't compile - so no regular checking with lint needed to look
for mismatches in calls.

3) bounds checking on all array access, no malloc to get blocks of raw
memory, no pointer arithmetic - so no store corruption  => so no days
wasted hunting down obscure bugs causing crashes.

4) full signature checking by the compiler on calls: no passing a word
parameter which is interpreted as a flag in some circumstances, a bit
mask or a counter in others, and a pointer to a string in all the rest
(I jest not - this was in the code!).

5) representation specifications for densely-packed data, allowing the
compiler to generate all the read/write operations needed - and doing it
correctly!

This alone would have saved us months of effort, even without the
benefits of using Ada's facilities to the full.  Even if the code had
still been written in a C style, so many errors would have been
prohibited, and so much done for us by the compiler, that we could have
concentrated on the logic of the application domain, rather than
low-level details of programming.

In all, if the package had been in Ada, no matter how badly written, I
think there would have been some chance of saving the project; as it
was, there was no chance at all.

-----

Of course, this being a commercial project failure, it never made the
news: the company certainly didn't issue a press announcement about it!
This was as much a management failure as a technical one: they were not
prepared to invest the money required to do it properly in the first
place (as though the 1M they threw down the drain on this one made good
financial sense!), and would not listen to the technical people like
myself who told them how bad the situation was ("But can't we just pick
up the ball and run with it?"). However, if Ada had been used instead of
C, I do not believe that the technical problems would have been so bad
as to make the success or failure of the project a management issue.

I'm thinking of writing this one up as a cautionary tale for one of the
journals - if only people would learn from stories like this!
Still, what can you do with someone who looks back wistfully to the good
old days of BCPL and thinks that C is too sophisticated?!

         Richard Stuckey

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager