Re: Ada vs Modula3

Re: Ada vs Modula3

[Kenneth Almquist]

Phil Brooke <pjb25@cam.ac.uk> asked:
> Has anyone got any comments on the relative merits of Modula3 and Ada (9X)?

One major difference is that Moldula 3 has automatic garbage collection.
Ada implementations are not required to provide this, and most don't.
					Kenneth Almquist

Re: Ada vs Modula3

[David Weller]

In article <CynpF4.6Mn@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Kenneth Almquist <ka@socrates.hr.att.com> wrote:
>Phil Brooke <pjb25@cam.ac.uk> asked:
>> Has anyone got any comments on the relative merits of Modula3 and Ada (9X)?
>
>One major difference is that Moldula 3 has automatic garbage collection.
>Ada implementations are not required to provide this, and most don't.
>					Kenneth Almquist

Quite true, since in Ada it's quite possible to create a dynamic
memory system and NOT generate garbage in the first place.  Nip 'em
in the bud, so to speak.

-- 
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. :-) 

Re: Ada vs Modula3

[Robb Nebbe]

Phil Brooke <pjb25@cam.ac.uk> asked:
> Has anyone got any comments on the relative merits of Modula3 and Ada (9X)?

I found the concept of type in Modula3 to be a little less coherent
than what I was used to in Ada. Modula3 uses structural equivalence
to determine if two types are the same and if you don't want that
you use branded types which are always distinct from other types.

The fact that something abstract like type equivalence can depend on
the implementation bothers me.

I did appreciate the convenience of automatic memory management in
Modula3.

- Robb Nebbe