Re: C++ vs. Ada (was Ada vs. LISP)

[archiel@mntgfx.mentor.com (Archie Lachner)]

From article <45978@linus.UUCP>, by eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Robert Eachus):
> In article <7682@venera.isi.edu> raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes:
>>In article <6153@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>>>...  Ada was designed to standardize software and it
>>>could replace almost any language with exceptions being rare.
>>
>>	Have you suggested that to a hard-core LISP user lately?
>>
>>Paul Raveling
>>Raveling@isi.edu
> 
>      It seems that everyone has seen AdaTRAN, but few people realize
> that the capability to write FORTRAN or COBOL or Pascal or LISP style
> programs in Ada was not an accident, it was a deliberate design
> requirement.
> 
> 					Robert I. Eachus

I doubt that an object-oriented C++ program can be translated into Ada.
Ada does not offer control of the semantics of either assignment or
initialization of user-defined types.  This capability is critical in most
object-oriented C++ programs.

C++ is becoming a language of major importance, because of both its wide-spread
use and the magnitude of the projects being coded in it.  Attempts to dismiss
it as a "passing fad," etc., are probably not appropriate.

Comments?
-- 
Archie Lachner
Mentor Graphics Corporation
Beaverton, Oregon
...!{decwrl,sequent,tessi}!mntgfx!archiel