Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

[chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>]

Stephane Richard wrote:

> If the millitary switches to Java, it will shoot itself in the foot.
> Especially if they expect the same kind of:
> 
> a.  Performances  (Java is slower than Ada, in many places I consider
> essential)

Java is slower only in a JVM.  A native compiler for the language need 
not be.  If Javas portable runtime technology was smarter, it could be 
faster or as fast.  It just isn't.  (See Juice - a once promising 
technology hindered by confinement to the Oberon platform).

> b.  Readability and Udnerstandability of Code

Understandibility of code?  A competent programmer in a language should 
be able to understand code in that language, otherwise there's something 
seriously wrong.

> c.  Any kind of standard.  A datatype is NOT an object and Java thinks it
> is.  What to make of that?  drop in performances automatically.

Java does not think anything.  It *specifies* that a program is composed 
of objects, each containing methods and fields.  It also does not 
specify everything is an object and every data type is an object.  You 
get primitives types in Java.  Those are the only concepts in Java 
(threads are active objects in Java; enumerations and templates haven't 
made it into core yet).  Other languages have records, objects, 
procedures, functions, methods, and lots of other concepts.

I also do not see how objects automatically imply a performance drop. 
Perhaps there is a price to pay now, but I do not see how it 
automatically follows that it must always be so.  (Also you have to 
decide what you're willing to sacrifice for abstraction.  Some would say 
things we take for granted incur performance penalties, like range 
checks or records, but we don't get rid of them).