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 Sep 92 15:13:46 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu
!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic!lth.se!
newsuser@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Dag Bruck)
Subject: Re: Ada's (in)visibility in the engineering community
Message-ID: <1992Sep14.151346.5563@lth.se>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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).