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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.object:2699 comp.lang.ada:4944 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!forwiss.uni-passau.de!wiese From: wiese@forwiss.uni-passau.de (Joachim Wiese) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: <1991Mar10.151220.2581@forwiss.uni-passau.de> Date: 10 Mar 91 15:12:20 GMT References: <1991Mar7.163106.29477@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> Sender: usenet@forwiss.uni-passau.de (USENET News System) Distribution: usa Organization: University of Passau, Germany Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.forwiss.uni-passau.de List-Id: johnsonc@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Craig C Johnson) writes: >Can anyone provide references which address productivity (either development >or maintenance) utilizing an full object-oriented language (say C++) vs. >Ada? I see lots of flames and anecdotal data but little hard data. C++ is a "better C" but not a full OO-language. C++ is an OO-language that offers a lot of flexibility. To much flexibility and to much pointers (to much C) to lead to quality software and productivity. I would rather be interested in comparing a _real_ "full OO-language" as EIFFEL vs. ADA. A book that addresses such issues as productivity, reuseability and maintenance is "Object-oriented software construction" from Meyer B. Prentice Hall 1988 It compares fetures of ADA and EIFFEL (exception handling, modularisation atc.) -- -------- O Joachim Wiese - \O/ --------------------------- O --------- -------- /!\ Uni. Passau---- ! wiese@forwiss.uni-passau.de /!\ --------- -------- / \ GERMANY ------- / \ --------------------------- / \ ---------