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,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!raybed2!rgc
From: rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs. C++
Summary: see Fred Wild's Tri-Ada '90 paper
Keywords: Ada, C++, language comparison
Message-ID: <2193@raybed2.msd.ray.com>
Date: 11 Apr 91 12:29:22 GMT
References: <23839@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: Raytheon Co., Tewksbury, Mass.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <23839@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>, mrb@sei.cmu.edu (Mario Barbacci) writes:
> 
> I would like to get pointers to studies contrasting Ada and C++ ...

At Tri-Ada '90, Frederic H. Wild III (Cadre Technologies) presented his
paper, "A Comparison of Experiences with the Maintainance of Object-Oriented
Systems: Ada vs. C++."
Here's the abstract: "This Paper discusses the relative ease with which
systems are maintained using the mechanisms supported by Ada versus
those supported by C++.  The paper opens with a discussion of
significant aspects of object-oriented development, followed by comments
about relevant support mechanisms supplied by each language.  Qualitive
comments are used freely regarding issues of object inter-relationship
complexities, object construction and reuse paradigms, readibility
aspects, and others."
I liked this paper because it was a nitty-gritty analysis of Wild's
personal experience with C++ and Ada.  He was disappointed with C++ and
explained exactly why.
The conference proceedings are available from
	ACM Order Department
	P.O. Box 64145
	Baltimore, MD 21264
ACM Order no. is 825902; price is $35 ($25 for ACM members).
	Rick Carle