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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d8567bda6086509f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bourass@ibm.net Subject: Re: What about Ada? Date: 1996/08/07 Message-ID: <4uav6i$3bno@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172811943 references: reply-to: bourass@ibm.net newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , H Marx writes: >Hi there, >I signed onto this list to find out what Ada is about. But so far saw >only Psacal vs. C vs. Assembler...? >I use Borland Pascal 7.0 and assembler a lot. But it has limitations. >-What would be the reasons for me to use Ada? Catching bugs at compile-time instead of run-time. Maintainability. Very simple and elegant (therefore useful) multitasking and synchronization. Language support for large-scale programming. >-How portable is it? There are Ada implementations on most major platforms both HW and SW. It is also standardized, so your source code will not be hard to port. GUIs of course remain just as problemmatic in Ada as in other languages. >-Are there "Integerated Developers enviroments" available? Yes >-Does it use DOS Seg:Ofs memory scheme's, PMode, 32-bit flat? Flat memory model, regardless of the platform. >-Can you use it in Windows? For windows? Yes >-How good is it's database support? Someone else will have to answer. Ada has the notion of packages -- some of which have been standardized. Not being overly involved with database, I do not know if a standard database package is out there. >-Does it allow function and operator overloading? Yes >-How optimised/fast is the code it produces? Optimized implementations compete on the same playing field with C. >Someone remarked on the list that Ada does not allow Macro's, but does >give you the option of using OOP or Procedural. Just like macro's can be >abused, so can OOP, and I would like to have liked the option of using >macros. (Pascal does not allow it either:-( If you are a die-hard macro fan, just use the macro compiler from your C tools. It is not really a compilation step anyway, but a pre-compilation step. Anyway, you will quickly find that it is not necessary. Generic procedures & packages cover most of the territory usually provided by macros, if not more... > >I know I could have found these answers in books as well, but can you >imagine investing in something that will not even do what you can do >already? > Forget that idea, Harry. If you must get your hands on bits and bytes, Ada does provide the capability you want. But it also does much more than C, much more safely. Regards, Greg Bourassa