Re: help me please!

["John Keeney" <jdkeeney@iglou.com>]

Ken Garlington <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3ezX6.311$kV6.181850212@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> [cross-posted to comp.lang.ada]
>
> "Emmanuel Gustin" <Emmanuel.Gustin@skynet.be> wrote in message
> : Ada is widely regarded as a language designed by a committee,
> : on a par with FORTRAN-99, and handicapped by an excessive
> : number of features. I don't know; I never used it.
>
> As someone who _has_ actually used Ada in avionics applications (unlike
Mr.
> Gustin, who was honest about his own lack of experience, and Mr. Tarver,
who
> failed to note that he is unqualified to give an educated opinion), I
> believe this is an extremely inaccurate characterization of Ada. It
> continues to be used in a number of areas, e.g. for MoD 00-55 SIL 4
> applications. There are non-technical factors that adversely affect its
use,
> particularly in the U.S. marketplace. See the National Academy of Sciences
> study "Ada and Beyond: Software Policies for the Department of Defense,"
> available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5463.html for more information on
> this subject. General information on Ada is available at
> http://www.acm.org/sigada and other sources.

While I've never "used" Ada I did attend a class (while teaching others)
where it and C++ were two of the four languages "introduced" during
the semester.
While I was already an active C programmer I found Ada much more
to my liking than C++. Ada was coherent while C++ -in trying to be an
advanced C- lost C's wonderfull one man design singularity of style.
C++ seems to me to be well on its way to joining the Lots of Insidiously
Stupid Parenthesis crowd of computer languages.