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
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-30 23:01:21 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail
From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
Date: 30 Sep 1994 08:45:16 -0500
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 684 5969
Message-ID: <36h4pc$9dd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <milodCwwqMy.CK@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com
Date: 1994-09-30T08:45:16-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

(Of course, y'all just _knew_ I'd say something here :-)

In article <milodCwwqMy.CK@netcom.com>,
John DiCamillo <milod@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The new question is, "Is *Ada* the future?" -- for those
>same applications and markets.  And the answer is, again,
>"probably not."  Although Ada is (arguably) technically
>superior to C++ in many regards, it is not a *sufficient*
>improvement as to warrant abandoning C++ as a language of
>choice.  In other words, it would not be cost effective
>for most orginizations (that have a choice) to dump their
>investment in C++ and switch to Ada9x.
>
In general, I agree that it would be unwise to abandon using C++ in
favor of Ada 9X.  The economics of changing languages is staggering
-- politically _and_ technically.  If I was knee deep in C++, you'd
have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me to change.

However, heavy C++ usage is the exception in the C/C++ world, not the
rule.  Ada 9X, in fact, is a "smarter" language to migrate to for C
users.  Just ask these guys:
	- Bob Metcalfe, Editor of InfoWorld and creator of the Ethernet
	standard
	- Peter Coffee, regular columnist of PC Week
	- Alexander Wolfe, regular columnist of Electronic Engineering
	Times
	- Jerry Pournelle, noted author and regular columnist in Byte
	magazine.

>The future will be some new language (or an enhanced ver-
>sion of some existing language) that solves new problems
>in ways that C++ and Ada can not.
>
I, for one, would welcome such a language.  In the meantime, I have a
responsibility to write reliable software.  Ada 9X does that for me
in ways that C++ folks are now only dreaming about.

>Convince me that I'm wrong.
>
I can't.  Making Ada successful starts from the heart.  Mandates
won't do it, threats won't do it, and long-winded debates and
language flamewars won't do it.  You must _believe_ that you can
succeed, and you must _believe_ you will succeed by using Ada.

>More's the point (if dual-use is to succeed), convince
>commercial development companies that I'm wrong.
>
Agreed.  But this is a change that requires time.  C++ has gained a
lot of momentum, but there's room for other languages (Eiffel,
Smalltalk, and Ada).  Nobody has to come out "on top".  The real
winner will be the language that is the most interoperable.  Guess
which on stands the best chance? :-)



-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
   ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-)