Re: Java Risks (Was: Ada News Brief - 96-05-24

[Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu>]

On 31 May 1996, Brian N. Miller wrote:

> In article <Pine.GSO.3.92.960530095503.21075A-100000@nunic.nu.edu>, Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> writes:
> |
> |  Java is BASIC for the next century.
>
> Now that's .sig worthy!

  Thanks. I actually think Java is a worthwhile contribution in
  the evolution of software tool-building.

> A disbelieve that C++ is evolving awkwardly.  Is there a publication
> which claims so?  Or is this 2-bit usenet opinion?  ;')

   It is probably a two-bit Usenet opinion.

   There are aspects of C++ that, as orginally  conceived by Dr.
   Stroustrup, make very good sense.  The fundamental idea of
   expanding the stuct into a class was a stroke of brilliance.

   Now, C++ is becoming a larger language than Ada. And the behavior
   of some of the new features seems to be making the possible
   interactions between those features more complex, and even more
   unpredictable.  In particular, the exception mechanism in C++
   is fraught with potential dangers.  There are other points one
   could make in this regard, but it would take to many pages to
   enumerated them all.

   It does amuse me, however, to read comments in periodicals that
   assume that C++ is less complex than Ada because "Ada was designed
   by a committee."  Of course, Ada was not designed by a committee,
   but no matter.  C++,as it goes through the ISO standardization
   process, also undergoes a transformation based on input from the
   international software community.  In the end, ISO C++ may end up
   as more the product of a committee than Ada.

   Richard Riehle