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,cb4b02eafef9cefb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Difference between ADA and c++ Date: 1997/08/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268344210 References: <33FDD17A.320B@virgin.net> <01bcafdf$50784b80$7774d8cc@fatman> <5to0ts$n9j@drn.zippo.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nasser quotes <> It is always entertaining when someone says "the jury is out", and then proceeds to appoint themselves as the lord high replacement jury, and make a ex-cathedra judgment with no data. In fact nothing significant has changed in C and C++ that would make them more eeffective in generating high quality code, so that implication is certainly bogus. If the point is that C++ compilers have become cheaper, true, but hardly significant. At this stage, the cost of the compiler tool suite is not a significant factor in choice between Ada and C++ (for example, the tool suites from SGI are pretty much identical in cost). Furthermore, now that costs of high quality Ada technology has dropped substantially, the cost of these tools is not usually a very significant part of the costs of a large project, certainly it pales compared to the costs of generating unreliable code.