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: 103376,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fca1b,5f8432149982f35e X-Google-Attributes: gidfca1b,public From: Lao Xiao Hai Subject: Re: Ada and QNX Date: 2000/10/16 Message-ID: <39EBB4D3.9C6BBB68@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 682302726 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8r1i82$ri3$1@kujawiak.man.lodz.pl> <8r5pe5$h70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8FCDFD7EEnopenopena@63.209.170.206> <39EA6305.CD5CFE1F@ix.netcom.com> <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com> <8sf9p0$kpg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39EB42B1.A14BDCB6@motorola.com> X-Accept-Language: en X-Server-Date: 17 Oct 2000 02:15:10 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.qnx Date: 2000-10-17T02:15:10+00:00 List-Id: Igor Kovalenko wrote: > Note that strictly speaking I never said Ada is wrong thing in general, > I just stated that it is not good for my personal taste. My original > intention was not to denounce Ada, but to say that pissing on C++ does > not do any good for Ada. I see, nobody seems to want to continue the > wedding analogy, but many are happy to let off some steam on me no > matter how many disclaimers I put. I guess it was mistake to give you > guys such an easy target :) Eezveneetye paizhalsta, Igor. "You are not the target" It is not you who is the easy target, but C++. Also, as for using it as a receptacle relieving for bladder content, you may be correct that I was not entirely fair in my earlier posting. It does bring a certain amount of perverse glee, though. We all have our opinions based on our own experiences. For me, C++ is the peanut brittle of programmig languages. Peanut brittle is easy to break apart, gets stuck between your teeth, and causes tooth decay. While a few C++ programmers may practice good software hygiene, it seems most do not. Consequently, most of the C++ code I see is reminiscent of the aforementioned peanut brittle. On the positive side, C++ used intelligently, can be engaged in the creation of relatively good software. I have actually witnessed this. Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. IMHO, if the software really must work properly all the time, Ada is better choice. To decide that Ada is bad because it looks too much like Pascal is a bit short-sighted. Of course, syntax does make a difference and we all have our preferences in that regard. However, it seems to me we should be making the decision on the basis of quality and reliability of our end product rather than on the popularity of, or the pulchritude of the language tools. When considered in that context, I have to choose Ada, even though I personally like Smalltalk and Eiffel. Richard Riehle