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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Joachim Durchholz Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/08 Message-ID: <33C29595.F5C0C219@munich.netsurf.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 256088803 References: <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com> <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB.417A@gdesystems.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Organization: ccn - computer consultant network GmbH Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Donovan Baarda wrote: > >PS : Before the Eiffel jihad returns fire, I'll add that Eiffel does > > not suck nearly as much as many popular languages :-) Good :)) > Eiffel's biggest problem is it is even bigger than Ada. This sounds strange to me. I feel Ada is more complicated than Eiffel. And that's comparing the very first draft of Ada with current versions of Eiffel! Of course these are just feelings, and from a developer's viewpoint, too. Under the hood, Eiffel may have more (and more complicated) features than Ada. But the language design is so clear and straightforward that most complexity doesn't show until you really want to know about it. > It also tries to > be the one tool for everything. Not really. It is intended for large systems, where correctness and clear structure become really important. It is adequate for intermediate-sized projects. It is not intended for real-time embedded systems (though one could cramp Eiffel into that environment if one really wanted to, but then you can do that with C++ or Lisp, too). Besides, there's nothing wrong in trying to be the one tool for (mostly) everything. One of the more important cost factor is retraining programmers for new languages, new paradigms, new libraries, and new tools. A language must try to be all things to everybody to have a chance today. This universality must not make the language bulky, of course. Your perception of Eiffel's bulkiness may differ, of course, but I find the language's unbulkiness striking. Eiffel is even more universal than one might think. It is not just a programming language, it is also useful for formal specifications in analysis and design. (One OOAD method actually exploits this. It is BON, by Kim Wald=E9n and Jean-Marc Nerson.) Regards, Joachim [C and C++ discussion groups clipped.] -- = Please don't send unsolicited ads.