Re: Ada vs C++, Franz Lisp to the rescue?

[jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)]

>Vendors are expected to overstate the worth
>of their product, the legal term is "puffing",
>BUT are we missing something by not discussing
>Franz Lisp in the same context as C++ when
>discussing the "vs Ada" language issue?

There are a number of OO languages that are "purer" than C++. That's
been one of the criticisms leveled at C++, in fact: that in order
to maintain compatibility with C a lot of compromises had to be made
that aren't necessary in a from-scratch language design (such as
Eiffel and, probably, Franz Lisp).

The reason I tend to focus primarily on C++ vs Ada is that C++ is
becoming a de facto OO standard at a distressingly rapid pace and,
as such, represents what I think is the single largest competition
to Ada in cutting-edge OO and software engineering in the commercial
sector. Seeing as how it is my personal vision that Ada be used to
build lots and lots of large complex systems that have nothing to
do with the government sector, I'm committed to offering a credible
rebuttal to C++ whenever and wherever possible. It's not that it is
impossible to engineer a complex system in C++, it's just that Ada
is at least equally capable of doing so, and is a far more mature
and robust option, so why not use it?
-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *