comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.  





  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