"Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

"Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

[pref]

http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/s5/

After reading the above, I wonder why anyone would use C or C++ in
place of Ada.

Re: "Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

[Kent Paul Dolan]

> http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/s5/

> After reading the above, I wonder why anyone would use C or C++ in
> place of Ada.

That is an interesting conclusion, from rather
thin support in the article you cite.

To me, the _entire_ substantive content of the
article could be stated:

  C++ is no good, Eiffel is great.

The rest was just noise, conclusions without evidence.

It was certainly kind of the author to mention
Ada, but to me that mention was more a dismissal,
and "oh, sure, Ada is _aimed_ at serious software
engineering, now moving right along to something
important", not a recommendation.



Cheers!

xanthian.
--
Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com>


-- 
Posted from smtp.well.com [208.178.101.27] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: "Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

[Ed Falis]

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>   C++ is no good, Eiffel is great.
>
> The rest was just noise, conclusions without evidence.
>
> It was certainly kind of the author to mention
> Ada, but to me that mention was more a dismissal,
> and "oh, sure, Ada is _aimed_ at serious software
> engineering, now moving right along to something
> important", not a recommendation.

Actually, the reason he didn't include Ada in the book "Objects
Unencapsulated", which the extract was from (or from its precursor
article), was that he didn't know Ada well enough to feel he could
comment intelligently on it.  The book also looks at Java alongside
Eiffel and C++.  It's a bit polemical, but an interesting read
nonetheless.

- Ed

Re: "Ada 95 is certainly aimed at serious software engineering." in article.

[Lao Xiao Hai]

I know the author of this piece rather well.  He has also written
a very interesting book,  "Object Unencapsulated."   Mr Dolan,
in his comments, is correct that Ian has a slight Eiffel bias.   That
is a result of some serious comparative study of Eiffel, C++, and
Java.   His book is much more detailed, if anyone wants to check
the details supporting his conclusions.    I have suggested to him
often that he might include Ada in the next version of his book.
Perhaps this will happen and the details will support a different
conclusion.   Either way,  Mr. Joyner is correct in his assessment
of C++ as dangerous for serious programming.    It seems the danger
is of little concern to those who use it.

I like the phrase someone used to state, "C++ is its own virus."  That
corresponds nicely to Mr. Joyner's views, I think.

Richard Riehle

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> > http://www.elj.com/cppcv3/s5/
>
> > After reading the above, I wonder why anyone would use C or C++ in
> > place of Ada.
>
> That is an interesting conclusion, from rather
> thin support in the article you cite.
>
> To me, the _entire_ substantive content of the
> article could be stated:
>
>   C++ is no good, Eiffel is great.
>
> The rest was just noise, conclusions without evidence.
>
> It was certainly kind of the author to mention
> Ada, but to me that mention was more a dismissal,
> and "oh, sure, Ada is _aimed_ at serious software
> engineering, now moving right along to something
> important", not a recommendation.
>
> Cheers!
>
> xanthian.
> --
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com>
>
> --
> Posted from smtp.well.com [208.178.101.27]
> via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG