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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 188847816 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net> Dave writes: > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > > > mg@harp.camb.inmet.com (Mitch Gart) writes: > > I don't think you're right in dismissing Java. It looks > > superficially like C++ but is much better in many ways. > > To me the choice between Ada 95 and C++ is obvious, Ada > > is way better, but the choice between Ada and Java is > > very close, each language has some advantages over the other. > > > > While I agree with you that Java is mostly an improvement over C++, and > > I rather like it as a language, I don't see too many advantages that > > Java has over Ada. Garbage collection is a big one, but some would disagree. > > > I'm curious, what are the advantages that the Java language has over Ada 95, > > in your opinion? > > > > 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. Do any Java "the language" implementations exsit which do not target the JVM? I don't know of any, but maybe there are? If not, this GC argument is just irrelevant. If Java means JVM, and you want that (for whatever reason) then using Ada in this context will also give you GC simply because the Ada->J implementations have GC (by using the JVM GC - just like the JTL impl does) > 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. But *languages* don't have GC. Implementations of them do. Even Meyer says little about GC in ETL - just that all *implementations* are *expected* to have it. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com