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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 04:30:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail From: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:13 +0200 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: <9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mailhost.axlog.fr X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 995455661 16609 195.25.228.57 (18 Jul 2001 11:27:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@oleane.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:27:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10145 Date: 2001-07-18T13:27:13+02:00 List-Id: From: "codesavvy" > Just to be clear. I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that > is suitable for many programming problems. It may even offer more > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant > in my mind. For a programming language to be considered vastly > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of > programming problems that another language can't. I know the second > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for > all programming problems but it is something to consider. There may > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more > productive. If there are I would be interested in reviewing such > studies. Also I would be interested in those programming problems > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't. > >From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything. In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing, (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then certainly Ada shines over all others. If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand its value. Some people like to chase bugs with a debugger; I even know some people who always run their programs the first time under the debugger, because they are sure that they will need it anyway. My personal pleasure is to take a good time understanding and defining what I really want to do, then write it, being happy that the compiler doesn't let me go with the various misunderstandings I've made in my design, finally get a succesful compilation. Run the tests - it's OK. Next problem. --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr