From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 30 Jan 93 08:39:00 GMT
From: michael.hagerty@nitelog.com (Michael Hagerty)
Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel
Message-ID: <1009.237.uupcb@nitelog.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

DB> Last week there was a panel on Ada vs. C++ in Monterey.  Would anyone
  > who attended post a personal report on comp.lang.ada?

At the risk of offending those who foam up merely thinking of a comparison,
this is my view of what happened at the ASEET panel.

It was very tame, tame indeed.  One of the panelists was on the C++ standards
committee and admittedly was mostly ignorant of Ada-9X.  Hard to fault him
for that; when you are on a standards committee, the whole world begins to
narrow on down.  Nonetheless, he did a creditable job of presenting C++ and
a weak job of highlighting the warts on Ada/Ada-9X.

The criticisms of C++ were mostly of the variety, "C++ would be a really nice
language, IFF you could disable the user's ability to use C."  As most users
already know, this is the big downside to C++.  Unfortunately, the desired
ability to limit the use of C in C++ is not possible and thus the rivalry 
continues unabated.  

The interesting pitch for Ada was centered around the argument that Ada is
a superior language for software engineering as it supports most cleanly
these concepts.  It was interesting, as I said, but the pitch was delivered
only to the choir.

Regards, Mikey (michael.hagerty@nitelog.com)
---
 . MR/2 1.39x #63 . A processor is a terrible thing to share...