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: ff6c8,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gidff6c8,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: Java Risks (Was: Ada News Brief - 96-05-24 Date: 1996/06/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 158113823 references: <4o56db$p66@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> <4omoh4$k0f@ansible.bbt.com> to: bnm@bbt.com content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.sw.components,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.edu Date: 1996-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 31 May 1996, Brian N. Miller wrote: > In article , Richard Riehle 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