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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a498aa1404ef5d87 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Matthew Heaney Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/08/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 377161285 Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net References: <35AE4621.2EBC7F6A@eiffel.com> <6p83vj$657$1@news.intellistor.com> <35B79E7D.6068DCDF@eiffel.com> <6pg7fg$qhi$1@news.interlog.com> <901533851.20058.0.nnrp-04.9e980ba3@news.demon.co.uk> <35be2a94.57352308@netnews.msn.com> <6plvgl$eaf$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <35bebe5f.95187031@netnews.msn.com> <6pn9af$hqd$1@uuneo.neosoft.com> <35BF49E8.136D75C2@earthling.net> <35C371D1.2E42A046@earthlink.net> <35C3FAFD.DDA89121@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 01:19:00 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jay Martin writes: > The mismanagement is that the DOD did not push Ada beyond the immediate > requirements of defense embedded systems. This statement is a bit ironic, since you often hear the opposite complaint: that Ada (83) went too far in trying to be an all-purpose language, and that the DoD should have settled for a _smaller_ language, with only the features specifically required for "defense embedded systems." It was during his Turing Award speech that Tony Hoare warned that "the fate of mankind" was a stake because Ada included ... exceptions! Imagine what he'd say about a language that mandated garbage collection. The perception in the software community (largely due to Hoare's speech) was that Ada was "too large and complex." You would never have sold the language had it thrown in a garbage collector too. And as Robert has pointed out in this and other threads, GNAT customers aren't much interested in GC. Matt P.S. The debate about languages being "complex" vs "feature-rich" was debated a few weeks back on comp.object. Get thee to dejanews for the gory details. (Hint: Ada is a large language, but not "complex" in the sense that is usually bandied about.)