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: 1996/10/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189921874 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff) writes: > Yes, I am being a bit sloppy here. I think it is fairly safe to say though > that no one would accept a Java without GC as being "Java (TM)", whereas > an Ada 95 compiler sans GC would still be Ada 95. So in this fuzzy sense, > I think we can agree that Java has it, Ada doesn't. If in a few years, most > Ada 95 compilers have GC, or if there is a way to provide a decent GC > capability as a library and it gets widely used, then this would change. Agree. This is why an annex on GC would have been nice. It would have put at least some awareness on vendors that GC was "expected" in a much stronger sense than in the current RM. But it would still have been optional. Also, it could have regularized (standardized...) some of the typical user visible bits. > systems, I am not qualified to discuss the merits of RTGC, so I defer to the > wisdom of others, who clearly don't want it forced on them. The funny thing is, no one would be forcing it on them. This is the same sort of goofy situation as occured for pragma Assert. Hey, a) it's optional, b) if you don't want it, don't use it. > > Simplicity of the threading model might be another. > > It's way too primitive and low level. Some seem to think of this as > simply "simpicity"... > > Here I agree, though I think Ada tasking could have been simpler and more > powerful. Backwards compatibility with Ada 83 and all that I suppose. I > hope future revisors will be given a little more room to change things. Agreed. > > I'm curious, what are the advantages that the Java language has over > > Ada 95, in your opinion? > > Hype and buzz and the fact that "sheep look up". > > Now, now! I could say "widespread commercial support, and market > acceptance" too. These are certainly good reasons to use Java, but I > specifically excluded them from my question. :-) > Technically? Nothing. > > That's what I think too, but I wanted to know if mg thought there > was something important. If it is Java being > Object.Method(Arg1,...,ArgN) versus Method(..., ArgJ'Class, ...), > that won't count to me either ;-). I suppose we could dig up the > mutually recursive interpackage types argument again, but I don't > know if I could stand it! Yes, there is indeed a good case of a real hole. Fortunately Tucker is out saving the day on that one! :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com