Re: Difference between ADA and c++

[Michael Young <mikey@mcs.com>]

Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> >The days of
> >balancing Microsoft/Borland/gcc/RogueWave library features promise to
>
> >disappear someday.
>
> Yes, yes, jam tomorrow.  I am sick of jam tomorrow.  The last
> third-party
> C++ library I installed had to be installed twice, once for each
> compiler,
> and if we had a third compiler we'd need to install a third copy.  At
> least
> with Ada I have jam _today_.

I was referring to the large body of existing code using the "old"
libraries, not yearning for something new. The libraries are widely
available now, and have been for some time. (If it matters, I agree you
would not have similar problems, given the underwhelming selection of
Ada compilers and products. You not only don't have _jam_ _today_, you
barely have the pots and pans with which to make it.)

I stated that Ada lags behind C++ in general development because it
lacks the library support C++ enjoys. I'm hearing arguments that amount
to: "Y'all ain't got none neither," when plainly, I see useful work
being done every day. There is library support for every domain you care
to name. For Ada, there are none. Zippo. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Anyway, I thought it of more than passing academic interest to share
this deep, unique insight. I was rather hoping to hear positive
responses of _jam_ in the making, not the steadfast denial of a few.

(Back to lurking. Wake me when you rediscover _jam_.)

Michael.

========================================
** If at first you succeed, hide your astonishment. **