Re: Ada The Best Language?

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> From: "codesavvy" <codesavvy@aol.com>
> > Just to be clear.  I think Ada 95 is a fine programming language that
> > is suitable for many programming problems.  It may even offer more
> > advantages than C++ but if it does the differences are not significant
> > in my mind.  For a programming language to be considered vastly
> > superior (many Ada advocates do consider Ada to be vastly superior) I
> > believe that developers utilizing the language should show a
> > substantial increase in productivity or it should solve a class(es) of
> > programming problems that another language can't.  I know the second
> > reason doesn't necessarily mean the language is vastly superior for
> > all programming problems but it is something to consider.  There may
> > be some studies that show developers to be significantly more
> > productive.  If there are I would be interested in reviewing such
> > studies.  Also I would be interested in those programming problems
> > that Ada 95 solves that C++ can't.

Obviously any reasonable language can solve any problem, so I assume you
don't mean "C++ can't" but something more like "it's not really reasonable
to tackle this problem in C++". 

Ada has built in concurrency, and since it isn't a !@#$ing flat language
like C++ (you may nest function definitions, and you have lexical scope) 
its a lot easier (IMO of course) to use Ada concurrency than some hacked
on thread library in C++. That's a big plus over C++ IMO. 

> From what you say here, I understand that your definition of a "better" language is one that allows you to do more things. In this
> sense, C++ is certainly extremly good: it allows you to do almost anything.

That's unfair. First, C++ doesn't "allow me" to nest function definitions. 
You're thinking of allowing in terms of "allowing one to do questionable
things". Well, Ada allows that too, but you're less likely to ask by
accident. 

Neither Ada nor C++ allow first class functions (OK, in C/C++ functions
are arguably first class but since they're flat who cares?) and from my 
POV they are both impoverished as a result. 

> In the Ada world, we consider that the value of a language is not only
> in what it *allows* to do but also in what it *prevents* from
> doing: accessing random memory locations, using inconsistent typing,
> . (long list omitted for brievity). If you accept this, then
> certainly Ada shines over all others. 

Certainly not! 

> If you don't, then maybe you didn't try Ada long enough to understand
> its value.

I don't doubt that you know Ada better than I do, but if you really
believe Ada shines above all others in type safety I suspect that you lack
a panoptic view of computer programming languages. I much prefer Ada to 
C++, but that's not unconditional love :-). 

Anyways, I'm surprised at the quality of anonymous trolls coming out of 
aol lately.

-- Brian