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: 10 Aug 93 02:43:29 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!seas.gwu.edu!mfeld
man@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Ada and C++: A request for comparison/contrast/relative benifits
Message-ID: <1993Aug10.024329.15044@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <246hpd$1r3@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>Regarding the note on the difference in the Booch components between the
>Ada and C++ versions.
>
>First, part of the imnprovement simply comes from the recoding.
>
>Second, as Ed Schonberg has described in more details, the work we did
>as the IAT here at NYU showed that the C++ versions could be recoded in
>Ada 9X in a straightforward manner leading to a version that was about the
>same length, but, in our opinion was much more readable [we are not great
>fans of the C++ syntax -- probably one of the languages poorer features]
>
Has this project been published? Will it be? Maybe a few examples at
least?

Also, when this was first discussed on the net (at least a year ago),
some people opined that a lot of the contraction came just from doing
it a second time with benefit of hindsight (the old Brooks principle).
Do you think that simple hindsight played a role?

Mike Feldman