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: 103376,2cdc6c2ee911fe77 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Bobby D. Bryant" Subject: Re: Ada vs. C++ Date: 2000/02/11 Message-ID: <38A4E40E.2FA51C81@mail.utexas.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 584845795 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38A37C97.9E181025@interact.net.au> <38A44487.B6F64F96@maths.unine.ch> X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@cc.utexas.edu X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 950330387 16844 128.83.128.103 (12 Feb 2000 04:39:47 GMT) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Feb 2000 04:39:47 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-12T04:39:47+00:00 List-Id: Gautier wrote: > Beware of not comparing a bad C++ compiler with a good Ada one (or > reversely) and conclude something about the languages... A contrary strategy, based purely on pragmatics, is to compare the two compilers you would actually use. For example, a poor student might feel restricted to the GNU or other free compilers, affording a fairly limited choice, which could be narrowed down by experiment. However, unless you're writing throw-away code I would agree with the sentiment of an earlier poster: you might be more interested in using whichever language tempts you to write the more maintainable code. If speed is the only concern, you could simply write "Hello, world!" for every project, no matter what the requirements call for, and when criticized say "Yeah, it's got some bugs, but it sure runs fast!". I urge you to get in the habit of thinking in terms of correctness and reliability rather than raw speed, and maintainability is, IMO, an absolute essential for having correctness and reliability. Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas