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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 14 Aug 91 05:03:58 GMT
From: june.cs.washington.edu!mfeldman@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Mike Feldman)
Subject: Re: c++ vs ada results
Message-ID: <1991Aug14.050358.19787@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Aug13.142900.28910@slcs.slb.com> cornish@slcs.slb.com (Darryl C
ornish) writes:
>
>Grady Booch converted the Booch Ada Component Library from ADA to C++.
>The result was thaty 150,000 lines of ADA became 20,000 lines of C++. 
>
First a bit of pedantry: please spell it Ada, not ADA.

Second, the Ada version of the Booch components has both sequential and
concurrent versions of each component; the concurrent version serializes
all method calls. This probably accounts for a fair number of the "extra"
lines. Does the C++ version take account - somehow - of a concurrent
environment?

Also I wonder if coding style made any difference. Perhaps Booch adopted a
more concise style in the C++ version. I have not seen the C++ version.
Booch's Ada components are, IMHO, rather excessively verbose, especially
as to extra-long names, which of course make the total LOC higher.

I don't want to get into language wars here, just to be certain we are
comparing the versions on a level playing field. Assuming that there were 
inherent aspects of C++ that allowed more concise coding - and not just a
different lexical convention, for example - then it would be interesting
to know what these aspects were. Maybe Grady will respond himself?

Mike


Mike