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
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!inmet!stt
From: stt@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++ to Ada?
Message-ID: <20600030@inmet>
Date: 4 Jan 90 18:55:00 GMT
References: <14118@grebyn.com>
Nf-ID: #R:grebyn.com:14118:inmet:20600030:000:1336
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!stt    Jan  4 13:55:00 1990
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


With regard to Ted Holden's most recent Ada bashing...

You really seem to have an irrational hate for Ada.

Few people would claim it is a perfect language, but
it has a number of advantages for large projects thanks
to the clean separation between interface and implementation,
the multi-level name space, and the strong type checking
across separate compilations.

I will admit that Ada has developed a "clunky" reputation
due to large, slow, and inefficient first generation compilers.
However, if you try the newer generation of compilers
from Verdix, Meridian, RR Software, Telesoft, Alsys, etc., I think
you will find that much of the "clunkiness" is gone, and the
advantages of the language outweigh the disadvantages for
many applications.  

Of course, Ada still has a ways to go.
However, I personally feel that the Ada 9X process may
fix the relatively few big "clunkers" in Ada while
adding some improvements which could significantly
increase its range of appropriate applicability.

Also, Ada compilers will slowly but surely get better and better.

In the meantime, though, I heartily recommend that if you hate Ada,
you avoid reading and/or contributing to comp.lang.ada.
If you only "dislike" it, constructive suggestions for the Ada 9X
process are always welcome.

Tucker Taft
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138