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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e7ceb00d83425e3a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "jhc0033@gmail.com" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal ) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 10:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7f3435c6-bacb-4e02-a1de-2e73a417ba6c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com> References: <31a97103-1cbb-47b5-a93c-2a29c206556f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <0d254195-50cb-4bad-b776-8d5c2ab09b6c@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <878wy9uyg9.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87zlqptajv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.7.227.219 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1211046823 11464 127.0.0.1 (17 May 2008 17:53:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:53:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.7.227.219; posting-account=ZDEUcwoAAAAfEl68GET6fODebgE-CIe2 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:171 Date: 2008-05-17T10:53:43-07:00 List-Id: On May 17, 4:49 am, Ludovic Brenta 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?