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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-03 07:06:25 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!eff!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!linus!mbunix!eachus
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
Date: 3 Oct 94 09:53:45
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Message-ID: <EACHUS.94Oct3095345@spectre.mitre.org>
References: <milodCwwqMy.CK@netcom.com> <36h4pc$9dd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
	<milodCx0K79.11n@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spectre.mitre.org
In-reply-to: milod@netcom.com's message of Sat, 1 Oct 1994 21:40:21 GMT
Date: 1994-10-03T09:53:45+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <milodCx0K79.11n@netcom.com> milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) writes:

  > Of course not.  Ada will survive for quite a while on the
  > DoD's anemic backing alone.  But if Ada folks expect non-
  > mandated use to rise beyond a blip, they will have to make
  > clear *what* advantage Ada provides to the developer.  Some-
  > thing along the lines of:

  > C++       - based on C, efficient, popular (widely available)
  > Eiffel    - correctness, good library, good IDE
  > Smalltalk - simple, expressive, dynamic, interpreted
  > Ada9x     - ???

   Let me be the first to fill in the blank:

   Ada9X -- safe, reliable, maintainable, best choice for large projects.

   (I'm not sure of the best way to state the last.  Everyone in this
group should know that I mean something like:  If you are writing more
than a half-million lines of code in any language other than Ada, you
should have your head and budget examined.  But that doesn't fit in a
single snappy line.)

   I also have to object to the "efficient" in the C++ line.  Any good
C++ programmer knows how to skate around the holes in the ice.  But
doing that results in "C-like" code, not C++.  A better statement
might be "efficient interface to C," but a lot of other languages have
that too.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...