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: 103376,2e11aa5522d5cc28 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Mixing Ada and C++. Is a good idea? Date: 1997/11/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 291463037 References: <345F7489.A10@si.ehu.es> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-11-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >Joe says > ><any size, because the inherent cohesiveness of the variables was not all >that high. This has been true in all projects past some critical size, >regardless of language, from the days of assembly on to the present. > >Having never gotten such a thing to work in the past, in any language, I >have simply given up on the approach. Another nice theory. >>> > >And yet, many programmers, who understand abstraction reasonably well, >*have* got this approach to work fine, in very large projects. I'm with Robert on this one, Joe. If you understand abstraction, and if you're _smart_ about how to use Ada packages to capture those abstractions, then all is well. Yes, you can have very real problems with Ada when you're not smart about how you use packages, but this isn't a language issue per se. If that's your situation, get some help from an Ada consultant. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271