Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation

[mg@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mitch Gart)]

Stanley R. Allen (s_allen@hso.link.com) wrote:
: Mike Stark wrote:
: > Actually, while Java superficially looks like C++, it is semantically
: > more like Smalltalk or Ada 95.  Most of the truly nasty features of C
: > are removed (such as pointers -- the only pointers in Java are
: > references to objects, and pointer address arithmetic is not allowed).

: Concerning semantics, you are certainly correct.
: But readability is very much a syntactic issue, and
: this is a big minus for Java.  Its "superficial"
: similarity to C++ is the problem, especially for
: large long-lived systems.

There are things about Java which are more readable than Ada.  I know
this is an old argument but in Java you have

   obj.func(param);

and in Ada it's

   func(obj, param);

To me the Ada is less readable, you have to look up the function's declaration
and the parameter's type declaration and think a little bit to know whether the 
call is dispatching or not.  Also the Java notation is more indicative of what 
is really going on in the program: the function is attached to the object and 
the function that will be called depends on the object.

Ada package notation makes it worse:

   pkg1.func(obj, param);

can really call the code in the body of pkg2, instead of pkg1, if there is
dispatching.  To me in this case the Ada syntax is lying to the person who
is reading the program.  It makes the code hard to read correctly in my opinion.
This says "use" clauses should be used wherever there is dispatching, but as
we know a lot of Ada coding standards frown on "use" clauses.

- Mitch "just my opinion" Gart