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 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5720 comp.lang.c++:14218 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplcomm!uunet!odi!dlw From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: c++ vs ada results Message-ID: <1991Jun19.150712.15330@odi.com> Date: 19 Jun 91 15:07:12 GMT References: <1991Jun12.164741.412@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1991Jun12.201740.16463@netcom.COM> <1991Jun16.041037.11606@kithrup.COM> <1991Jun18.041751.3740@netcom.COM> <1991Jun18.122812.18190@eua.ericsson.se> <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> Reply-To: dlw@odi.com Organization: Object Design, Inc. In-Reply-To: jls@netcom.COM's message of Tue, 18 Jun 1991 22:06:09 GMT List-Id: In article <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: This is an excellent point, and mirrors my own experiences with Ada. I imagine similar things are true of Eiffel, Modula-3, and any of the other modern software engineering languages. There is nothing WRONG with this, but an organization needs to recognize that with increased language complexity comes a greatly increased ability for the average programmer to get in trouble. What he said was that he found that it was very hard to write reusable code libraries that are very space-efficient, very time-efficient, usable, and reusable by a wide range of applications. This is going to be true no matter what language you write in. He offered no evidence that writing such code would have been easier in a language that traded off less complexity for less ability. The "increased language complexity" issue is your point, not his point. I do agree with your overall point about some people being much more qualified as architects than others.