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: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: demer@hc17031.hcsd.ca (David Emery) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 236850145 Sender: demer@hc17031.hcsd.ca References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <5j078b$b25$1@NNTP.MsState.Edu> <335458A4.4C1D@worldnet.att.net> <5j30oa$ia9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: HCSD Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Measured by the "pages in the standard" metric, I think that Java is also "worse than" Ada95, certainly if you include the standard library definitions. What's more important is the level of specification. Some of the draft language standards I've seen for other languages are much shorter than the Ada95 RM (or ISO C++ or the Java books), but don't come anywhere near the level of specification that these standards achieve. Certainly the original K&R book on C was -not- an adequate language standard (but it was not intended to be, either...) dave -- Note: if email to me bounces, use 'emery@grebyn.com'