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: 5 Apr 93 16:13:38 GMT
From: tinton.ccur.com!cjh@princeton.edu  (Christopher J. Henrich)
Subject: Re: Datapro announces survey of ObjectOrient languages
Message-ID: <1993Apr5.161338.1841@tinton.ccur.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <SRCTRAN.93Apr2100042@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory 
Aharonian) writes:
>	Thus the window of opportunity for becoming a major OO language only 
>will remain open for a few more years.  Given that it will take that long for
>Ada9X to be finalized, fully approved, standardized, and have compilers
>debugged and tested, by the time the Ada9X community is ready to make the
>case for Ada9X (if they even care at all), most windows will be shut.  And
Here we seem to be looking at a big difference between two cultures.
If the fans of C++ had waited until that language was finalized, they
would not have been heard from yet.  Because it isn't finalized yet.
(I may be wrong but I think the ANSI committee is still considering
changes to C++.)  Instead, they have been going ahead with
preliminary tools, either accepting or positively enjoying the fact
that the language was in a state of flux.  Clearly this has been
appropriate for that part of the world of softwre development which
builds applications for PCs.

Is the much more sedate pace of Ada-9X evangelization (yes, Virginia,
there is such a thing) equally appropriate for a different part of
the marketplace?  I am referring to systems where the computer is
part of a large, expensive piece of equipment, development projects
involve many people, and large bodies of code must be maintained
over times measured in decades.  In this sector, Ada-83 seems to have
been successful, regardless of the Mandate.  I think Ada-9X will
do very well, but maybe Mr. Aharonian is right in wanting us to
sing its praises more loudly and clearly.

There is one important feature of Ada (83 or 9X) that C++ utterly
lacks: the program library.  In Ada-land, we take it for granted that
the compiler knows all about the entire set of modules that have been
compiled into one "program library."  This is especially important in
long-term multi-person projects.  I understand that there are
significant enhancements in library management in Ada9X.  These
should be an important talking and selling point.

There you have it.  It would be nice if we could spread light,
inexpensive, preliminary Ada9X systems around the PC world, and give
lots of programmer a chance to try it out, write some neat packages
of object-oriented code, and so on.  (I want one for my Mac, dammit!)
But I don't see how Ada-9X can get there from here.  Likewise, it
would be nice to make program library management integral to C++, but
I do not see how C++ can get there from where it is now.

Regards,
Chris Henrich