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: 10261c,cfbb90c56a313e70 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,cfbb90c56a313e70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: ODRe: From extended Pascals to Ada 95 guide Date: 2000/08/24 Message-ID: <39A5B71A.2CEF8F02@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 662162614 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8o3s2a$9ph$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8o4bfq$v0h$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> X-Accept-Language: en X-Server-Date: 25 Aug 2000 00:00:53 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 2000-08-25T00:00:53+00:00 List-Id: James Smith wrote: > Too bad the US gov didn't save some taxpayer dollars by just adopting Modula > 2. Of course that would have made too much sense. > Unfortunately, Modula-2 falls short of requirements met by Ada. Although there are many nice things about Modula-2, it is not as strongly typed, has a more awkward model for abstract data types, and other shortcomings that those who know both languages can enumerate. Modula_3 is actually a considerable improvement and its technique for supporting abstract data types is more sophisticated than that in Modula-2. However, even Modula-3 is still not as strongly typed as Ada and continues to have little gaps in the language definition that would be unacceptable for some of the kinds of projects undertaken by an Ada designer. Be specific, you might say. OK. Just one example: structural equivalence instead of name equivalence for data types. Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com