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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!apple!claris!peirce From: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada on comp.lang.c++ Keywords: OO design, bashing Message-ID: <6998@claris.com> Date: 21 Nov 88 18:54:44 GMT References: <6474@june.cs.washington.edu> Reply-To: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA List-Id: RE: Flame on Ada by Bob Burch I'm not sure such a flame deserves a reply, but (against my better judgement...) I'll give a short one anyway. This guy seems to have a boat load of preconceived Ada biases. I doubt he has ever used a decent Ada environment. Now maybe he has used AN Ada environment, but judging a language by one or two bad implementations is a bit premature. I worked on a medium size project (~35 engineers) doing factory automation work. We switched to Ada in mid-project to improve the quality of our system and to provide ourselves with a first rate SOFTWARE ENGINEERING environment. Ada made a big difference in this project by providing a excellent environment for well thoughtout design (NOT HACKING - Ada is a horrible hacking language) and development coordination. The environment was DEC's VAX/VMS Ada. Compile times were reasonable (a tad slower than Pascal, but it was doing work each compile) and the quality of the code produced was as good or better than some of DEC's other compilers. Keep in mind this was a non-DOD related project (no one force Ada down our throats) and we actually thought Ada had a very positive impact on the project. Ada has it place (espcially in larger, complicated project that demand a well thought out (DESIGNED) solution. I'm sure C++ will have it's place, but so does Ada. -- michael .