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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.object:2751 comp.lang.ada:4982 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!pacbell.com!ames!vsi1!ubvax!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 91 00:47:01 GMT References: <1991Mar10.151220.2581@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <11966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Mar15.224626.27077@aero.org> Sender: news@Rational.COM Followup-To: comp.object Distribution: usa List-Id: >I hate the C'ness of C++, but I find myself implementing many things in >C++ just because of inheritance and dynamic binding. If Ada is ever >to become mainstream (and I seriously hope it does) inheritance and >dyn. binding had better be incorporated into the language. Enlighten me. How is it that many of the largest software systems ever attempted--including all of the flight control software for North America and all the software for the Space Station--are being written in Ada, even though Ada doesn't have "dynamic binding"? Second question: assume Ada got dynamic binding tomorrow. What could be done with it that can't be done with it today? -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."