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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/11
Message-ID: <Dz424A.C3C.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 188720413
sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
x-nntp-posting-host: houdini.camb.inmet.com
references: <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net>
organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dave (dave@gte.net) wrote:

: Garbage collection, by itself, is significant enough for one to
: seriously consider choosing Java over Ada for projects which do not
: require low-level timing control.  

: Garbage collection greatly increases developer productivity and greatly
: reduces error counts.  Except for hard real-time systems, it is, IMHO,
: very unwise to choose a language without a garbage collector when a
: language with a garbage collector is available.

For what it's worth, our AppletMagic(tm) Ada95 => Java byte-code
compiler gives you Java's garbage collection, along with Ada's many
compile-time advantages, such as enumeration types, strongly distinguished
numeric and array types, generic templates, separate spec and body,
in/out/in-out parameter modes, named parameters in calls, etc.  

See www.inmet.com/javadir/download/ for a beta version.

: ...
: -- Dave Jones

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Cambridge, MA  USA