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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,59f7ca851a394aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: cts@alpinet.com (Craig Spannring) Subject: Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Date: 1996/12/02 Message-ID: <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 201950749 references: <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr> organization: Structured Network Systems, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steve Jones - JON wrote: >Michiel Perdeck wrote: >> >> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive). >I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory >deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it >wrong). Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding these concepts. Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need the simple concepts for most programs. Overall I would guess someone with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C. Are there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada? Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work already know C or C++. >6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada. Most Ada compilers are still >rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C >compiler does. You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit steep for a toy to use at home.