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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,912597791e813f68
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-09 18:58:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: advantages or disadvantages of ADA over pascal or modula
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:07:07 -0800
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3E1E38DB.AE797693@adaworks.com>
References: <av4c0m$8a4$06$1@news.t-online.com>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.49.31
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 10 Jan 2003 02:58:05 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32851
Date: 2003-01-10T02:58:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

karl bowl wrote:

> I would like to ask anybody to tell me about advantages or disadvantages of
> ADA(95) over pascal or modula(2).
> Many thanks in advance

Pascal and Modula-2 have rather poor support for inheritance and programming
for extensibility.   Neither come close to Ada's support for concurrency and
real-time programming.   Modula-2 requires one to use opaque types and this
is sometimes a Pain.   Also, Modula-2 has case sensitive reserved words and
that drives me crazy after a very short time of using it.

Modula-3 also has case sensitive reserved words, but it is, in some respects
a great improvement over Modula-2.    I particularly like the safe mode
features of the language.    One obscure little issue with Modula-3 is,
unlike Modula-2, that types with different names can be used interchangeably
if they are structurally equivalence.   I don't like structural type
equivalence
in C, C++, or Modula-3.   I don't trust type promotion either, but at least one

is not plagued by that in Modula-3.

Overall, Modula-3 is a pretty good language design.  I still prefer Ada, but
Modula-3 could be a good choice for a wide range of projects, especially
with its safe mode feature.

Richard Riehle