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: 2001-07-19 14:55:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: codesavvy@aol.com (codesavvy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: 19 Jul 2001 14:55:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5be89e2f.0107191355.534211d0@posting.google.com> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.59.170.85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 995579714 9822 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2001 21:55:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2001 21:55:14 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10289 Date: 2001-07-19T21:55:14+00:00 List-Id: 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.