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: 103376,9e2776c05028676e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice
Date: 1997/07/03
Message-ID: <dewar.867970213@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254388505
References: <33A7FBFF.29D2@mitre.org> <5o9eca$aoi$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <EC03q1.J3A@world.std.com> <33ab1c1c.2926201@news.mhv.net>
 <dewar.866864714@merv> <33AE33AA.684A@sprintmail.com>
 <33BC2364.4485@gsg.eds.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John Volan said

<<Ada *is* inadequate; but so is C. I'd certainly prefer to use Ada than C
or
(shudder) COBOL, both of which I've been forced to use. Most of the
inadequacies in Ada apply in spades to C.
>>

Interesting, why the shudder at COBOL. I have written a lot of COBOL, and
find it quite amenable. For IS Systems, I would use the ranking:

Ada/95
COBOL
Ada/83
C

There are some respects in which i prefer COBOL to Ada. I find the approach
to dynamic (runtime) binding of modules in COBOL to be lighter and easier
than in Ada Annex E (I am talking about dynamic call). I also like the
easy local refinement syntax in COBOL.