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: 103376,54c513170bafd693
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net>
Subject: Re: Desirability of C++
Date: 2000/05/01
Message-ID: <390DDBED.D17B9A05@netwood.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617984726
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <01HW.B4BFC2820005B06B08A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <87euk0$c93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002040920070.2217-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <01HW.B4C1346100072D2408A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <949867976.281549@the-rowan.albatross.co.nz>
 <8766v93w66.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
 <F721B334E5BE49E3.6D9E1F7A7C81C3CE.9B64FD843F046A46@lp.airnews.net>
 <sc336dpgee6168@corp.supernews.com> <38E8C81A.AA62CF4C@HiWAAY.net>
 <hoffman-ya02408000R1204002048410001@news.insync.net>
 <01HW.B51C1B6E00F41C2D04BB51B0@news.pacbell.net>
 <38F796B2.A99A206A@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <38F7A27A.4F7729FA@raytheon.com>
 <8eclae$afj$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
 <4F706057FEE2A550.BF5FE19AE279EFCD.A55706B3F9D07043@lp.airnews.net>
 <8eiv08$820$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <390D001C.7433140B@netwood.net>
 <390D58F9.7CC64B85@maths.unine.ch> <390D97DC.241E7CCD@netwood.net>
 <COhP4.4040$ln5.86505@news.swbell.net> <8ekfoo$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <lykP4.4078$ln5.88486@news.swbell.net> <8eko13$skr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison wrote:

> I think that it is truly a fact that
> there is a much wider panoply of tools in use
> than many folks like to admit.
> Perhaps there's some inborn desire for conformity
> that causes people to so desperately want to see consistency
> where in there is none.
> Or perhaps it's just the pattern matching nature of our brains.

No.  It's not quite as simple as that.
Developers can invest more time and energy
in popular, commercially viable tools.
Generally, optimizing C and C++ compilers are better
than optimizing Ada compilers
simply because more compiler developers can afford
to invest in them than in optimizing Ada compilers.
More popular languages like C and C++
can evolve faster than less popular languages like Ada
because library developers can get the money
required to keep up with compiler maintenance.
For similar reasons, C and C++ are available
for a much wider variety of target platforms than Ada.

The point is that there are very real considerations
which prejudice programmers
against Ada in favor of C or C++.