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,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,d730ea9d54f7e063 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173956061 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.cobol Date: 1996-08-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4um1l9$klq@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck writes: > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) wrote: > >In article <4uj42h$j06@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Craig Franck < > >> Realize it's much easier get a C compiler up and running for an embedded > >> system that it is an Ada compiler. To even call it an Ada compiler it > >> must pass a validation suite. > > > >First point: Why do you think this? There seems to be quite a lot of > >evidence indicating that this is not true. > > > >Second point. Just plain wrong. If you want, you can call your C++ > >compiler an Ada compiler. Of course, no one will take you seriously, > >but you are free to do so. > > Well I'm not an Ada expert, but I have "Ada as a Second Language" > by Norman Cohen and "Ada Programmer Handbook" by Dean Gonzalez. You don't have to be an Ada expert, just someone with a clue. That book is out of date in general (Ada83) and in any event the so called registered trademark bit was removed a good 7 or 8 _years_ ago. It never held any legal weight anyway. > If I were to bid on a contract, tell the DOD I'm developing in Ada > and submit C++, I think they would call that "fraud". This is just completely irrelvant to the point. A compiler vendor can call his product Ada if he wants, even if it does not comform in any way with ISO/IEC 8652:1995. Your bidding on the _use_ of Ada in a project while using C++ is a completely different issue. > I think part of the resistance to Ada is C belongs to the world. > Ada belongs to the government! :-) > > If this has changed, please enlighten me! It was never like this, so you have always been in the dark. However, in the past, the cost of getting into it was really prohibitive except for major players. Now, with Gnu Ada (GNAT), an excellent high quality system _freely_ available on all major platforms (UNI*, soon to be VMS, Windoze(95/NT), DOS, and now MAC), this too is really _old_ think. And the vendors are putting out the same or better excellent implementations with full IDEs, built in GUI builders, etc., for reasonable prices (in the MSVC++ range or less) for Windoze(95/NT) and UNI*. And, what's more, you can use your Ada code as Java applications. The Intermetrics AdaMagic Ada95 to Java compiler fully integrates with Java (the JVM and the Java classes and Java applets). Please consider this an attempt at your enlightenment :-) For those who would like to browse a multi award winning web site for further enlightenment, check out the Home of the Brave Ada Programmers: http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada/ /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com