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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!grolier!oleane.net!oleane!hunter.axlog.fr!nobody From: Jean-Pierre Rosen Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.pascal,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:57:53 +0200 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mailhost.axlog.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: s1.news.oleane.net 1248073576 8424 195.25.228.57 (20 Jul 2009 07:06:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@oleane.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:06:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:320 comp.lang.ada:7166 comp.lang.modula3:46 comp.programming:11876 Date: 2009-07-20T11:57:53+02:00 List-Id: Andrea Taverna a écrit : [...] > - Ada is best suited for large teams and/or critical software, thus > it may be overkill for my work, OTH it could have anything I might > happen to need. > What holds me from jumping onto Ada is the potential complexity As a long time teacher of Ada, let me elaborate on this particular issue. 1) More than complex, Ada is feature-rich, with some properties that do not exist in most other languages (user defined elementary types, discriminants, stack-allocated dynamic structures ...). Of course, you'll have to learn about these features - if you want to use them. 2) Ada is extremely consistent. You'll have to learn the basic principles, but once you've got them, you'll discover that all the features follow the same logic. Therefore, the first step might be higher than for other languages, but then everything appears logical and easy to grasp. 3) Ada is simple to use, because difficulty of implementation has never been an excuse for forbidding something that the user would expect to work. However, that makes the language complex to compile, and part of the alledged complexity of Ada refers to complexity of implementation, not complexity of use. Of course, as a user, you don't care about this, since you have compilers, even free ones, that implement the language correctly, and this is checked by passing the validation suite (AKA ACATS). -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr