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,ca0b11ae1c9a00cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to implement Date: 1998/02/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 326398999 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> <34E8AA02.7ED447E0@cs.utexas.edu> <34E91572.CE9CEED2@cs.utexas.edu> <1998Feb17.204550.1@eisner> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Raytheon Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1998Feb17.204550.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > In article , gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn) writes: > > > C++ is quite another matter, and I suspect that Ada95 and C++ compilers > > are of roughly equal complexity, and the languages are of roughly equal > > difficulty to learn and use. C++ does get more and better press. > > Well, C++ also gets worse press. I believe a network search for pitfalls of > using C++ would produce considerably more results. Was that assignment given > to someone else in the organization, or is this really a slanted test ? C++ certainly has its fair share of pitfalls, enriching a number of authors. I have a number of these books, including the C++ FAQ, and wouldn't attempt C++ without reading them. These books are quite pointed, and free of marketing bafflegab, which isn't to say that all C++ compilers are good. My bitch is that the corresponding Ada95 books don't seem to exist, for whatever reason, dooming us to blunder into the same mistakes time after time. We might wish to learn from the C++ community. Joe Gwinn