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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: Ola Liljedahl Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/14 Message-ID: <369DECA9.44959773@enea.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432527553 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369CAB38.404C0610@praxis-cs.co.uk> <369CBD49.C686157D@pwfl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Enea OSE Systems AB Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > A very good point. When Ada first hit the market in 1983, the popular > languages were a multitude of C dialects, Fortran, Cobol, and maybe some > Pascal. Here we are today where the hot languages are C++, Java and C doesn't have to be 'hot' to be extremely popular anyway. Probably more popular (i.e. actually being used) than C++, Java and Ada. Most C compilers have modes for Kernighan&Ritchie C, ANSI C and maybe even PCC (portable C compiler). So your 15 year old C program will compile with a minimum of fuss. > maybe some others. But all that Ada83 code will still compile today with > minimal fuss even thought processors and operating systems have changed > dramatically. That and the fact that Ada was specifically designed for > very large, very long-lived projects and you've got some pretty solid > reasons why this should be the choice for projects which aren't into > building throw away code. For some products/projects it is not meaningful to try to re-use ten year old code. Technologies (hardware and software) changes. Requirements changes. To utilize the most of the available hardware you need to redesign your system and rewrite your code. If you are not leading edge somebody else will be. Some other company with the best brains and the proper tools making it possible to churn out the best and most interesting software while your product boasts that it is still using that first list package you ever wrote. Everything dies. In my personal opinion the much touted benefits of code re-use made possible with object oriented languages is mostly hype, meaningful in some cases but definitely not all. -- Ola Liljedahl olli@enea.se