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,ca0b11ae1c9a00cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Geert Bosch <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to
 implement
Date: 1998/02/17
Message-ID: <6cas6q$1ge$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 325828468
References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> <dewar.887600858@merv>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980216123342.22587A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <dewar.887669672@merv>
Organization: La Calandre Infortunee
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
 <<As for C++ grammar being tricky, not really, parsing is a very
   small part of the problem (and relatively easy) in both cases,
   I don't see a difference here of any significance.>>

Having read both Ada and C++ code, I find Ada code *much* easier
to parse than C++. But I'm not a machine of course ;-)