Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)

[dave <dave@dave.dave>]

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

> I can't understand why native Java would be better.
A mute point since the source has now been released, but Java 
compilation into native CPU machine code, presents the most efficient 
expression of the OO concept in the embedded area. Bytecode, JIT and JVM 
have their place, but not in space & speed limited chips.

>> Most Game developers use ASM and more recently C;
> 
> And more recently (years) C++. :-)
Can't argue with your correction here, however I find it is the tool, 
graphic and IDE engine vendors that are driving this. The original 
engine sources tended to be C with assembler booster code (Quake, 
HalfLife and derivatives). Microsoft, Nvidia, SGI (where are they now!) 
and GL developer packages are offered as C++ libraries. So you are still 
correct.

>> Schools teach Basic;
> 
> Actually I think they teach Pascal and perhaps some C. But it depends on 
>  the countries I guess.

I can only speak to the UK and USA; and just parts therein also. 
Education is in the hands of the educator. Some of my colleges are 
teaching Java to 11-16 year olds, thus it would not surprise me to learn 
Pascal or even C is being taught to the same age group.

Note however: there are implementations of Basic that surpass both 
Pascal and C. VAX Basic, for instance, was taught in an area of Florida 
I lived in. Students studied it from 11yrs through to University.

Different horses, different courses. Different countries, different 
methods. Different goals....

Nme. God Bless.