From: "jhc0033@gmail.com" <jhc0033@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal )
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 10:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-05-17T10:53:43-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f3435c6-bacb-4e02-a1de-2e73a417ba6c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87zlqptajv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org
On May 17, 4:49 am, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> jhc0033 writes:
> > Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >> If what you want is a comparison of C++ versus Ada, look elsewhere,
> >> like e.g.http://archive.adaic.com/docs/present/engle/comments/
>
> > Actually, that's terrible. Some figures without context, quoting some
> > judges-assigned scores using uncertain criteria, comparing to C++ from
> > as early as 1991! (C++ as we use it today is about 10 years old) Some
> > factual statements are incorrect (like C++ does have namespaces -
> > perhaps it didn't back then)
>
> Indeed, it didn't back then.
>
> > Still, what struck me is that the author doesn't recommend Ada for R&D
> > or anything that won't be "fielded". And if C++ was better for R&D in
> > the 90s... Is this the general consensus?
>
> Where did you see the author saying C++ was better for R&D than Ada?
> Skimming through the document I only seehttp://archive.adaic.com/docs/present/engle/comments/tsld032.htmwhere
> the author basically says Ada is not for quick and dirty hacks, which
> is true.
Pasting the slide here:
====================================
Ada may not be appropriate
- When some other language has lower lifecycle costs
- For some R&D applications where the intent is for concept
development only and the system will not be fielded
- For some prototype applications, however the prototype must not
be carried into E&D for subsequent fielding
- When a compiler does not exist for the hardware platform
- When timing and/or sizing constraints make Ada a technical
infeasibility
====================================
So he specifically mentions R&D with no "fielding", where "fielding"
is probably where people's lives depend on it, in the context of DoD.
> But that doesn't make C++ suitable for those either. I
> think he rather had scripting languages like Perl in mind.
I don't think that makes sense in his context and time. The whole
comparison was C++ vs Ada. Why suddenly assume he meant some other
language on this particular slide?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-17 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-16 10:56 Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-16 12:28 ` Mike Silva
2008-05-16 13:04 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-16 14:33 ` Mike Silva
2008-05-16 22:26 ` Randy Brukardt
2008-05-17 6:30 ` rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal ) jhc0033
2008-05-17 8:28 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-17 9:27 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-05-17 9:56 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-05-17 12:05 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-05-17 9:38 ` jhc0033
2008-05-17 11:49 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-17 17:53 ` jhc0033 [this message]
2008-05-17 23:21 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-18 0:28 ` jhc0033
2008-05-18 0:35 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley
2008-05-18 8:04 ` Prototyping with Ada (was: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal) Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-20 10:25 ` John McCabe
2008-05-20 16:57 ` Prototyping with Ada Jeffrey R. Carter
2008-05-20 17:23 ` Mike Silva
2008-05-20 17:37 ` Peter C. Chapin
2008-05-20 23:30 ` Mike Silva
2008-05-21 0:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2008-05-21 12:53 ` Martin Krischik
2008-05-22 8:43 ` Stephen Leake
2008-05-28 11:32 ` John McCabe
2008-05-28 12:12 ` Ludovic Brenta
2008-05-29 3:27 ` tmoran
2008-05-29 9:41 ` John McCabe
2008-05-31 6:03 ` Stephen Leake
2008-06-02 15:43 ` Britt Snodgrass
2008-05-17 9:45 ` rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal ) Georg Bauhaus
2008-05-17 10:57 ` Mike Silva
2008-05-17 16:49 ` tmoran
2008-05-16 22:56 ` Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal Ivan Levashew
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox