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: 109fba,fa07350fd81f7563 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,fa07350fd81f7563 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,80e8e0df8032d89e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-21 21:18:53 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!loghost.sdsc.edu!acsc.com!wp-sp.nba.trw.com!truffula!not-for-mail From: brad@truffula.fp.trw.com (Brad Brahms) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.object Subject: Re: Is C/C++ the future? Date: 19 Oct 1994 14:57:06 -0400 Organization: TRW Tactical Intelligence and Planning Systems Message-ID: <383q62$k0v@truffula.fp.trw.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: truffula.fp.trw.com Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:7171 comp.lang.c++:33658 comp.object:7669 Date: 1994-10-19T14:57:06-04:00 List-Id: In article , R. William Beckwith wrote: >John Barton (jjb@watson.ibm.com) wrote: >: In article , beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith) writes: >: |> Bernie Thompson (bernie_thompson@bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote: >: |> : The judgements here are that use of anything other than C++ would be >: |> : rejected by the marketplace. >: |> >: |> You guys are going to miss the boat with this kind of thinking. >: |> Watch out. Your competition thinks Ada is a crucial technology >: |> and market. You've been warned. > [SNIP] > >I think a lot more people will use Ada now that they _can_. As the >O/S's and products of the future define their interfaces in IDL, >the benefits of Ada's natural strengths are combined with a clean, >natural interface to GUI's, DBMS's, O/S's, etc. > Lets, see, yes, the DoD still requires Ada. However, many programs within the DoD, including new ones, end up having waivers to use other languages, most notably C or C++. In the US, most non-DoD work utilizes C, C++, COBOL or FORTRAN (depending on legacy). I do not believe there is a lot of comerical Ada work going on in the US. When I say this, I mean for actually producing end products for the comercial market place. Europe, however, I believe has taken and use Ada quite a bit in the comerical market place. Yes, there are exceptions to all of these. However, these are the trends that I have noticed going on. While I'm not an Ada enthusiast, our company is one of the biggest developers of Ada software. I have yet to see any large Ada project finish without some other language, usually in the form of C-bindings, to help! That is not to say there arn't any, but just a view of what I have seen. >Thus, the Ada/OLE binding is not necessary. Any ORB vendors Ada/IDL >product would translate the OLE IDL into a usable Ada interface. Ada/IDL? Isn't that an oxymoron? Don't know of ANYONE who has one or will have Ada/IDL for some time, not to mention Ada to any ORB connectivity. -- -- "Life is like a box of chocolates..." -- Bradley Brahms TRW brad@truffula.fp.trw.com