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: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-21 01:43:57 PST From: "Martin Dowie" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <9j1uio$8br$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107171810.1cee29c0@posting.google.com> <9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:39:36 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Message-ID: <3b593d22$1@pull.gecm.com> X-Trace: 21 Jul 2001 09:28:18 GMT, sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10390 Date: 2001-07-21T09:39:36+01:00 List-Id: Here's another link which you may find useful. Apologies if this has been posted before. http://www.adaic.com/docs/present/ajpo/pll-cost/html/ codesavvy wrote in message news:5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com... > I can't believe some of the posters in this thread. Again I said that > Ada 95 has nothing to offer that is substantially better than C++. If > there was then logically higher productivity would result. I can't > believe that you have a difficult time grasping this concept. Some > posters have been kind enough to provide me with anecdotal data and in > one case a link to some data that Capers Jones has which I appreciate. > > Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:... > > In article <5be89e2f.0107181237.4ab3594@posting.google.com>, codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) writes: > > > "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:<9j46bt$3qj$1@nh.pace.co.uk>... > > >> Well, if Ada has nothing to offer and this is obvious then why are you > > >> bothering to a) read this newsgroup and b) post to it at all? > > >> > > > > > > Here is what I wrote: > > > > > > I think the answer is rather obvious, Ada has nothing to offer that is > > > substantially better than what C++ offers. > > > > > > I didn't say that Ada had nothing to offer, just nothing that is > > > substantially better than C++. > > > > > >> If you have a serious question about Ada and its potential benefits and are > > >> willing to entertain the possibility that maybe Ada *is* a better choice > > >> than C++, then we will be more than happy to point to resources for you or > > >> help you learn the language or answer questions about the language. But a > > >> blanket statement that seems to be saying "Ada is s**t! Why are you guys > > >> bothering???" seems more calculated to start a flame war than to get a > > >> serious question answered. > > >> > > > > > > You must have missed my other post where I stated that Ada 95 is an > > > excellent language and may actually be better than C++. However, I > > > don't feel that developer productivity is significantly enhanced with > > > Ada 95 as opposed to C++. > > > > You started with "nothing to offer", but seem to have devolved into > > "no productivity advantage to offer". The reason I use Ada is not > > productivity, but correctness.