Re: Ada vs C++, Franz Lisp to the rescue?

[chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton)]

> The reason I tend to focus primarily on C++ vs Ada is that C++ is
> becoming a de facto OO standard at a distressingly rapid pace and,
> as such, represents what I think is the single largest competition
> to Ada in cutting-edge OO and software engineering in the commercial
> sector. Seeing as how it is my personal vision that Ada be used to
> build lots and lots of large complex systems that have nothing to
> do with the government sector, I'm committed to offering a credible
> rebuttal to C++ whenever and wherever possible. It's not that it is
> impossible to engineer a complex system in C++, it's just that Ada
> is at least equally capable of doing so, and is a far more mature
> and robust option, so why not use it?> -- 
> **************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************

I think the single, most important reason that C++ is overtaking Ada as the
OO language of choice is the very thing that makes Ada the DoD choice. Ada's
extreme standards process works to its detriment in introducing new changes
to the language. C++ came out of nowhere, without any of the bureaucratic
nightmares levied on Ada. A few, innovative people added REAL object oriented
extensions to C and tossed it on the market. Ada 9X may very well turn into
Ada 20X by the time any compilers hit the street.

Let me say that I am in no way a supporter of C++, nor a detractor of Ada.
(I've worked on the Space Station program for the past 4 years and done nothing
but Ada development.) However, C++'s support for object-oriented pardigms
such as inheritance, true methods, and dynamic binding are much closer to
"true" OO development than the work-arounds that Ada supports. You can hardly
argue that a generic or a task type can completely substitute for a true class
definition with instance variables, methods, and inheritance. Ada requires
too much of a burden to be placed on coding conventions and programming style
and provides too little support for "objects" in its current state to be 
considered a "real" object-oriented language. There's just no adequate support 
inherent in the languge.

I won't argue the point that Ada is far superior when it comes to large system
development. This is a fact, plain and simple, and C++ cannot hold a candle
to Ada's abilities to decompose a problem into managable pieces and insure
the consistency between them. However, Ada is not all things to all programming
tasks, and one of the things it isn't is an object oriented programming language.
Information hiding, strong typing, and generics does not an OOP make. Maybe
when Ada 9X's support for procedures as arguments, etc. becomes available,
this comparison between C++ and Ada as OOPs will be a little more on target. 
But until then, there is no comparison. Defending Ada, tooth and nail, on
EVERY application is a no-win situation. Ada CAN'T do some things as well
as other languages.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shotton                 Internet:   cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu
"Your silly quote here."      UUCP:       ...!buster!brain