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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-01 15:13:25 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!milod From: milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) Subject: Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?] Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <36h4pc$9dd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 21:40:21 GMT Date: 1994-10-01T21:40:21+00:00 List-Id: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes: >John DiCamillo wrote: >>The new question is, "Is *Ada* the future?" -- for those >>same applications and markets. And the answer is, again, >>"probably not." >In general, I agree that it would be unwise to abandon using C++ in >favor of Ada 9X. The economics of changing languages is staggering >-- politically _and_ technically. If I was knee deep in C++, you'd >have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me to change. >However, heavy C++ usage is the exception in the C/C++ world, not the >rule. True enough, with one caveat: in the personal/workstation world most C programmers are using C++ compilers (all that the vendors now sell). This makes the transition easier. >Ada 9X, in fact, is a "smarter" language to migrate to for C >users. But not politically easie. Technically, I'd say it's a push. There's a lot to learn either way. >Just ask these guys: > - Jerry Pournelle, noted author and regular columnist in Byte > magazine. While I like Jerry's column, I'm not prepared to take language advice from him. Jeez, the guy likes OS/2 for heaven's sakes! >>The future will be some new language (or an enhanced ver- >>sion of some existing language) that solves new problems >>in ways that C++ and Ada can not. >I, for one, would welcome such a language. In the meantime, I have a >responsibility to write reliable software. Ada 9X does that for me >in ways that C++ folks are now only dreaming about. Not *all* of us are dreaming. Some of us are doing. >>More's the point (if dual-use is to succeed), convince >>commercial development companies that I'm wrong. >Agreed. But this is a change that requires time. C++ has gained a >lot of momentum, but there's room for other languages (Eiffel, >Smalltalk, and Ada). Nobody has to come out "on top". Of course not. Ada will survive for quite a while on the DoD's anemic backing alone. But if Ada folks expect non- mandated use to rise beyond a blip, they will have to make clear *what* advantage Ada provides to the developer. Some- thing along the lines of: C++ - based on C, efficient, popular (widely available) Eiffel - correctness, good library, good IDE Smalltalk - simple, expressive, dynamic, interpreted Ada9x - ??? --milo P.S. "Team OS/2"? sheesh! -- c'iao, milo ================================================================ John DiCamillo Pinin' for the fjords? milod@netcom.com What kind of talk is that?