From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 28 Aug 91 05:12:27 GMT
From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net  (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Critique of Mosemann studies
Message-ID: <SRCTRAN.91Aug28001227@world.std.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

      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