From: dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller)
Subject: Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
Date: 1996/12/04
Date: 1996-12-04T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net
In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
Spannring) wrote:
> Steve Jones - JON <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >>
>
> >> 2. Learning the language takes long (= expensive).
> >I'd say learning C takes longer as explaining pointers, memory
> >deallocation etc to new programmers takes ages (and they still get it
> >wrong).
>
> Learning pointers, arrays, and in/out parameters in C is difficult and
> you can't write anything more than 'hello world' without understanding
> these concepts. Ada has some difficult concepts, but you only need
> the simple concepts for most programs. Overall I would guess someone
> with no experience could be productive sooner in Ada than in C. Are
> there any studies on the learning curves of C++ vs Ada?
>
> Now of course most of the programmers out there looking for work
> already know C or C++.
>
> >6. There is no VisualAda or Borland Ada. Most Ada compilers are still
> >rather poor. They tell you what the problem is in the same way a C
> >compiler does.
>
> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> steep for a toy to use at home.
MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400
The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
four figures than two. Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
all across the board. WOW they are EXPENSIVE!! The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
what Ada does out of the box. Not a bad deal. The other advantage of the
Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
compilers from MS or Borland.
--
"I'm always baffled by the number of software people who think fast code is better than correct code!" Me.
dmiller@iquest.net
Senior Software Engineer and jack of all trades.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-12-04 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <E0Mo5L.n2E@atf.cmg.nl>
1996-11-10 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Smith A. Cat
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Scott McCoy
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Corey Minyard
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada (NOT!) Dirk Dickmanns
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Craig Spannring
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Dana Miller [this message]
1996-12-05 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-09 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1996-12-10 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-11 0:00 ` Dave Wood
1996-12-20 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
[not found] ` <01bbd2c9$f8707680$14080c26@cat>
1996-11-15 0:00 ` Vincent Celier
1996-11-16 0:00 ` Geert Bosch
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox