Re: "Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

[Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com>]

I know the author of this piece rather well.  He has also written
a very interesting book,  "Object Unencapsulated."   Mr Dolan,
in his comments, is correct that Ian has a slight Eiffel bias.   That
is a result of some serious comparative study of Eiffel, C++, and
Java.   His book is much more detailed, if anyone wants to check
the details supporting his conclusions.    I have suggested to him
often that he might include Ada in the next version of his book.
Perhaps this will happen and the details will support a different
conclusion.   Either way,  Mr. Joyner is correct in his assessment
of C++ as dangerous for serious programming.    It seems the danger
is of little concern to those who use it.

I like the phrase someone used to state, "C++ is its own virus."  That
corresponds nicely to Mr. Joyner's views, I think.

Richard Riehle

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> > http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/s5/
>
> > After reading the above, I wonder why anyone would use C or C++ in
> > place of Ada.
>
> That is an interesting conclusion, from rather
> thin support in the article you cite.
>
> To me, the _entire_ substantive content of the
> article could be stated:
>
>   C++ is no good, Eiffel is great.
>
> The rest was just noise, conclusions without evidence.
>
> It was certainly kind of the author to mention
> Ada, but to me that mention was more a dismissal,
> and "oh, sure, Ada is _aimed_ at serious software
> engineering, now moving right along to something
> important", not a recommendation.
>
> Cheers!
>
> xanthian.
> --
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com>
>
> --
> Posted from smtp.well.com [208.178.101.27]
> via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG