Re: is Ada dying?

[Robert*@ <Robert_member@newsguy.com>]

In article <3BC1C7E3.46046096@worldnet.att.net>, James says...
>
 
> A clear understanding of the String class
>shows it to be very inefficient for string editing. The StringBuffer
>class is intended for string editing. 

I am sorry, but this is well known and documented everwhere that to
use StringBuffer instead of String if one intends to makes lots of 
changes and editing on the content of the buffer. Anyone who has been
programming in Java for one week knows this. 

page 1285, "The java class libraries", right at the top of the page:

"The String class is used to create immutable string objects. Each
time you make an update to a string, a new String object is created.
A more efficient way to deal with these updates is to store a string in
a StringBuffer...."

So, what is it again you said about badly documented Java classes?? I suggest
you get a copy of the Java class libraries books if you intend to do any
serious java programing.

>
>The javadoc tool is very useful. It localizes the documentation of
>the standard Java classes. The same can be said for the Ada RM.
>

Not the same. I generate javadocs for all my java classes as part of
the build process. There is no javadoc like tool for Ada. period. In Ada,
if you want to find what is the API of a package, you have to open the
spec and read it. No one in Java does this, they simply read the HTML
auto generated docs. Much better presented, easier to follow, etc...
 

>The Java white paper uses a lot of unsupported buzz words to
>describe Java. Some of my favorite are "simple" and "high 
>performance". Java is not a simple language. There are thousands
>of standard classes to learn. 

You are confusing the language itself, from the libraries.

Java the language is certinly simple, at least simpler than C++ which it
is replacing. Having a huge library is a Good Thing (TM), and it have
nothing to do with the language itself. Use the classes you need, do not
use those you do not need. Having huge libraries means code reuse and faster
development process.

>Java is not high performance.
>It is simply faster than a dial-up network connection.

Java these days is very fast, there are many places on the net that shows
Java performance getting close or better than C/C++ for some applications.
If you are interested I can show you the links, but any search on the net
can find you these sites. The performance thing is a weak argument these
days when it comes to java.

>The current state of Ada standard packages is very good. It is 
>not as extensive as the set of Java standard classes. 
>Quality and quantity are not the same thing.
>

Ok, so lets sit here and wait for this high "quality" Ada packages that
allow me to send an email using Ada or process an XML document or play
a midi file, and by the time this standard high quality Ada package come 
along, no one will be left using Ada to use it.

>This is more Sun propaganda.

I do not work for Sun. 

> Sun has a history of avoiding formal
>standards. 

You are still not getting the point. "official" Standards do not mean 
anything. 

VB has no official standard, VC++ for years did things the way MS wanted, 
Java has no "official" standard, DELPHI has no "official" standard, and
I do not think perl has an "official" standard, etc... Ada had both an
ansi and iso standard since 95.  Now if having an official stamp of a 
standard is important, you would think Ada will be the most widley used
language becuase of this stamp.