From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 From: chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada vs C++, Franz Lisp to the rescue? Date: Sat, 25 May 91 10:09:35 CDT Organization: BIAP Systems Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!buster!brain.UUCP!chuck Message-ID: <0D010010.vk2p2d@brain.UUCP> Reply-To: chuck@brain.UUCP X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.4a List-Id: > 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