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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc1b2,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gidfc1b2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,21674edb667218cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,206c0414fb5fe3e X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 21:51:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6F73F9.15E98173@gte.net> From: "Matthew V. Jessick" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada (was Rival JSF teams fly final STOVL flights with flair, highlight strengths) References: <945d79ff.0107312306.4665e855@posting.google.com> <3b67fd90_2@binarykiller.newsgroups.com> <421a7.235$0e7.91390140@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com> <3B6A1179.26C1C04@home.com> <3B6A15C3.8B3A9277@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: +4oQ4AAfsVeRgXYyUMMy43l57BXru/nL3TDnFhthaTM8bGfQgj34rCx59ABYIfJjTsAvEVirbMfz!0f7HDVhFtv/d1m5VzSHy/IX0aM26IgFE3x1Tsjgql8ZCUsw3REcPwyfByg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 04:51:45 GMT Distribution: world Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 04:51:45 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com rec.aviation.military:47106 rec.aviation.military.naval:11608 comp.lang.ada:11451 Date: 2001-08-07T04:51:45+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > Actually, wrong doesn't even begin to describe it. Ada supports both compile > time and runtime polymorphism (I assume that's what's meant by "full > polymorphism). C++ did indeed borrow some of Ada's ideas (eg: exceptions, > generics, line comments), but by no means all the important ones. For instance > it still does not sport any kind of native concurrency support, which is one of > Ada's big draws. C++ does have some of C's syntax but it has a lot of its own > too. C++ is a definite improvement over C, but its hardly a suitable substitue > for Ada. I've worked with UAV algorithms and software in Ada and now work in video games using C++. C++ to me requires considerably more discipline to program without silly bugs. The if (A=B) { mistake where B is copied into A and if non-zero the if condition is true. if (A) B; C; where C appears to be part of the loop but really isn't just because the first programmer didn't "waste" time putting in some "superfluous" curly braces and the maintenance programmer wasn't sufficiently alert to catch it. The case problem of having to hand code break statements to separate case blocks: switch(a) case b: sdfdasf; adsfdaadsf; case c: break; In Ada, every possible value for (a) is required to be handled. The additional error potential of hand coding break statements is also removed. And don't even get me started on {}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{{} ;} or macros or multi-dimensional array syntax or default argument passing by value or... It just isn't suited to coding logic statements without silly mistakes. (There are coding standards you can impose to reduce these mistakes, but I miss my Ada compiler each time I make one of them.) - Matt