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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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: 2001-07-18 14:00:47 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: 18 Jul 2001 14:00:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5be89e2f.0107181300.4b4e93d7@posting.google.com> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com> <9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.59.170.85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 995490047 2729 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2001 21:00:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2001 21:00:47 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10204 Date: 2001-07-18T21:00:47+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote in message news:... > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > From: "codesavvy" > > > Just to be clear. I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that > > > is suitable for many programming problems. It may even offer more > > > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant > > > in my mind. For a programming language to be considered vastly > > > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I > > > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a > > > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of > > > programming problems that another language can't. I know the second > > > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for > > > all programming problems but it is something to consider. There may > > > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more > > > productive. If there are I would be interested in reviewing such > > > studies. Also I would be interested in those programming problems > > > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't. > > Obviously any reasonable language can solve any problem, so I assume you > don't mean "C++ can't" but something more like "it's not really reasonable > to tackle this problem in C++". > Exactly thanks for stating it more clearly than I did. > Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language > like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope) > its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked > on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO. > I agree with you. I really do like the Ada 95 concurrancy model. However, I doubt if the gain in productivity is substantial but I could be convinced otherwise. Let me put it this way. If Ada 95 is to be adopted on a much larger scale than it is now managers and developers are going to have to be convinced that there is a distinct advantage to using Ada 95 over some other language. Your points about concurrancy are certainly valid, however, I'm afraid that the typical manager (or developer for that matter) does not see this as a compelling reason. Something that demonstates that the development cycle can be significantly improved upon would command their attention. Here we have what many consider to be "the best" language and it's utilization and acceptance seem to be waning (Ada is a dead language). > > From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this > > sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything. > > That's unfair. First, C++ doesn't "allow me" to nest function definitions. > You're thinking of allowing in terms of "allowing one to do questionable > things". Well, Ada allows that too, but you're less likely to ask by > accident. > > Neither Ada nor C++ allow first class functions (OK, in C/C++ functions > are arguably first class but since they're flat who cares?) and from my > POV they are both impoverished as a result. > > > In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only > > in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from > > doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing, > > . (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then > > certainly Ada shines over all others. > > Certainly not! > > > If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand > > its value. > > I don't doubt that you know Ada better than I do, but if you really > believe Ada shines above all others in type safety I suspect that you lack > a panoptic view of computer programming languages. I much prefer Ada to > C++, but that's not unconditional love :-). > > Anyways, I'm surprised at the quality of anonymous trolls coming out of > aol lately. > > -- Brian