From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,faa31ce746726af0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-03 01:38:09 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!lglsun!nebbe
From: nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs Modula3
Date: 3 Nov 1994 09:38:09 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov3.102741@lglsun.epfl.ch>
References: <37dir6$d93@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <CynpF4.6Mn@nntpa.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 1994-11-03T09:38:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Phil Brooke <pjb25@cam.ac.uk> asked:
> Has anyone got any comments on the relative merits of Modula3 and Ada (9X)?

I found the concept of type in Modula3 to be a little less coherent
than what I was used to in Ada. Modula3 uses structural equivalence
to determine if two types are the same and if you don't want that
you use branded types which are always distinct from other types.

The fact that something abstract like type equivalence can depend on
the implementation bothers me.

I did appreciate the convenience of automatic memory management in
Modula3.

- Robb Nebbe