Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

henderson was no auteur wrote:

> Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
> C# totally blows Ada away.
> 

Visual Studio.NET is an environment, not a language.
C# has some features of Ada. It has a lot of features of Java.

I would not look to C# for efficiency. Speaking of "out of the box"
experiences, look at the C# concept of "boxing". This, in summary,
is the tendency of C# to convert primitive types to instances of a
class implicitly. That is, you have no control over the timing of
this dynamic allocation. To a naive programmer this makes C# look
easier to use. It certainly removes important levels of control and
efficiency from the programmer.

The C# threading model is a strange combination of Java threads,
WIN32 threads, and a very questionable implementation of a monitor.

C# still does not allow you to define your own primitive types like Ada.
C# has no built in interface to any other language except through the
.NET interface. C# must have the .NET virtual machine to run, ruling out
any RTOS.

None of this blows Ada away.

Microsoft continues to state that .NET will be implemented on additional
operating systems. So far that is just hyp. .NET, and by association, C#,
are prisoners of Microsoft operating systems. Ada is proven to work well
across a wide range of operating systems.

Jim Rogers