Critique of Mosemann studies

Critique of Mosemann studies

[Gregory Aharonian]

      I am preparing a critique of the Mosemann studies on Ada and C++
(unfortunately without seeing the text, just comments).  Before I post the
critique to the net, I wouldn't mind a few reviews.  Anyone interested in
taking a look, please email your address to me, and I'll send the critique.
Here's the header:

==============================================================================
WHY THE MOSEMANN ADA/C++ STUDIES ARE FLAWED

	I believe that there are flaws in the recent set of Mosemann studies
dealing with the economic superiority of Ada over C++. The flaws center around
downplaying commercial software activities that in the long run will lead to
lower development costs for C++. One activity is IBM's favoring of C++ over
Ada in AD/Cycle. Another is the non-existence of the Ada components industry.
Another is use of inadequate microeconomic models for comparing Ada and C++.
The last is the divorce of Ada and VHDL.

==============================================================================

Gregory Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
srctran@world.std.com

Re: Critique of Mosemann studies

[Mike DePriest]

In comp.lang.ada, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>      I am preparing a critique of the Mosemann studies on Ada and C++
>(unfortunately without seeing the text, just comments).  Before I post the
>critique to the net, I wouldn't mind a few reviews.  Anyone interested in
>taking a look, please email your address to me, and I'll send the critique.

Isn't it a little premature to critique something you haven't read? I haven't
read the Mosemann study either, so I don't feel qualified to comment on it.

IMNSHO, this is akin to writing a critique of a film based on what Rex Reed,
Gene Shalit, and USA Today said about it in their reviews. Funny thing, there
are a lot of movies that have no critical appeal are very popular and 
economically satisfying, while the movies that critics like are often
box-office duds.

If you're only looking to pour gasoline on a burning fire, this will be a great
way to do it - just be ready to defend yourself against the inevitable flames.

BTW, I won't read your critique - I'll judge it by the comments here. ;-)

>Gregory Aharonian
>Source Translation & Optimization
>srctran@world.std.com

-- Mike DePriest * Ada: It's the law.  *   package OPINIONS is
-- Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville   *     STANDARD : DISCLAIMER_TYPE;
-- (904) 772-4895 (DSN) 942-4895       *     procedure disavow_culpability;
-- depriest@oasys.dt.navy.mil          *   end OPINIONS;

Re: Critique of Mosemann studies

[Will Bralick]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Aug28001227@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:
>      I am preparing a critique of the Mosemann studies on Ada and C++
>(unfortunately without seeing the text, just comments).
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, how can somebody critique something without even having read it?


Regards,

--
Will bralick@cs.psu.edu                 		with disclaimer;       
							use  disclaimer; 
Not to seem aposiopetic, but

Re: Critique of Mosemann studies

[Robert Firth]

In article <SRCTRAN.91Aug28001227@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:

>      I am preparing a critique of the Mosemann studies on Ada and C++
>(unfortunately without seeing the text, just comments).

Unless you are aiming to become the programming language critic for
the Weekly World News, or a journal of similar respectability, I'd
strongly suggest you actually take the time to read the studies
before attempting to critique them.

Nuff said.