Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu]

In <comp.lang.ada> obry@flash.bellcore.com (Pascal Obry) writes:
>
> ... so they chose C++ (yes, they think it's the
>good old C plus something so it should be good too ... bad mistake no !)
>
> ... they have no good reason to choose C++ but they chose it ...

Well, I guess "gradual transition" is a reasonable argument.  I assume
that integrating Ada with existing C code must be (somewhat) harder
than integrating C++ code with existing C code, in particular if you
start using C++ as a "better C."

>Like Edmond Schonberg said in is comparison Ada 9x and C++ :
>
>" Although the C++ community would never state it so baldly, it appears clear
>to us that C++ is to some extent a reaction to Ada. By extending C with some
>of the best ideas of Ada, C++ did in some measure catch up to Ada "

Ed Schonberg also said in public that he thinks C++ is a more powerful
language than current Ada, and less powerful than Ada 9X.  (Stockholm,
earlier this year).