Re: rant (Re: Ada featured in Doctor Dobb's Journal )

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

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 see
http://archive.adaic.com/docs/present/engle/comments/tsld032.htm where
the author basically says Ada is not for quick and dirty hacks, which
is true.  But that doesn't make C++ suitable for those either.  I
think he rather had scripting languages like Perl in mind.

Anyway, since you're evaluating languages for your next project, you
should not take anyone's word as gospel; you should experiment and
decide for yourself (only lemmings listen to "analysts" and "market
researchers", right?).  I'd be interested in learning about your
findings.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.