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=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5772 comp.lang.c++:14294
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!aunro!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!dmg
From: dmg@ssc-vax (David M Geary)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: c++ vs ada results
Message-ID: <4170@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jun 91 17:03:58 GMT
References: <1991Jun19.170047.25064@software.org> <1991Jun20.140836.24430@scrumpy@.bnr.ca> <1991Jun20.220947.23970@sctc.com>
Sender: news@ssc-vax.UUCP
Reply-To: dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David M Geary)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

astevej@bnrmtl.bnr.ca (Steve Juneau) writes:

] In Ada, the ENFORCEMENT of the specifications by the language 
] gives me belief that when the system has been compiled and linked, 
] the interfaces match.  Sure, I could get that in FORTRAN with 
] discipline, or in C using function prototypes ...

]   What Ada gives me is the means to provide reasonable, enforceable,
]meaningful, interfaces.  That's not available in any other widely
]distributed and available-for-software-engineering of real-problems.

What about Eiffel?
-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~       David Geary, Boeing Aerospace, Seattle, WA.       ~~~~~~~~~~|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|~~~~~~  Seattle:  America's most attractive city... to the *jetstream* ~~~~~~|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|