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: 103376,808505c9db7d5613
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Looking for good Ada95 book
Date: 1996/10/29
Message-ID: <dewar.846630258@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193074461
references: <32723F6A.54A3@dtek.chalmers.se> <32750568.123@essi.fr>
 <01bbc5d8$a3b24e00$6a9148a6@cornerstone.mydomain.org>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Fran Post says

"I would have to second the Barnes book.  Stay away from the Feldman books."

This seems like a type error to me (comparing values of different types).
The Feldman books are not Ada books, they are CS1/2 books that happen to
use Ada, and I find them well written for this purpose (I stil don't like
the horrible non-standard keyword/identifier style, but other than that ...:-)

The Barnes book IS an Ada book.

If you don't know how to design programs, and want to learn, and want to
learn using Ada, you will find Feldman's book much more appropriate than
Barnes. If you know how to design programs and want to learn specifically
about Ada, then the Barnes book is much more appropriate.