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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Mike Coffin Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/19 Message-ID: <8p6emoqzt10.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434619246 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <8p6vhi5mv34.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <8p6yan1xger.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <780so2$u83$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java Date: 1999-01-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: adam@irvine.com writes, in part: > Out of the five things you think are "way too complicated", four and a > half of them are things that you don't need to use to program in Ada. I didn't say there wasn't a simple subset of Ada. That would be stupid; there is a simple subset of any programming language. I said Ada was complicated. You challenged me for some examples; I gave them to you. > I mean, if your complaint is that "Something I can do easily in C [the > language your fictional programmer wanted to use] is complicated to do > in Ada", you might have a valid argument. But all these examples are > more of the form "Something is complicated in Ada that C doesn't > support at all." So how is Ada's "complexity" a negative? OK, so > tasks might be complex, but if you have a program that doesn't need > them, so what? And if you have a program that does require this kind > of concept, is it "less complex" to do it in C, where you'd have to > write all the synchronization and task-switching and time-slicing > routines yourself? Maybe "overloading" seems complex (although I > don't see why), but C doesn't have it at all, so you have to come up > with distinct names for everything---so why can't you just do the same > thing in Ada? Ada does not put a gun to your head and say you must > understand and use overloading. It's a nice feature if you want to > use it, but if you don't, don't---why would that be a point against > using the language? This might be a valid argument if I wrote all programs from scratch, never inherited a program or library from someone else, never had to debug another's program, and never had to work in a team. I don't have that luxury. If my team uses Ada, I *have to* understand overloading and tasking. -mike