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: 1994-10-03 15:43:32 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!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: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 20:41:30 GMT Date: 1994-10-03T20:41:30+00:00 List-Id: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: >In article milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) writes: > > C++ - based on C, efficient, popular (widely available) > > Eiffel - correctness, good library, good IDE > > Smalltalk - simple, expressive, dynamic, interpreted > > Ada9x - ??? > Let me be the first to fill in the blank: > Ada9X -- safe, reliable, maintainable, best choice for large projects. Please define "safe" and "reliable" in this context. How are they different? How are they the same? How are they different from "correctness" in the Eiffel feature-list? Languages are not maintainable. Rather, programs are main- tainable. A good language and environment coupled with dedicated engineers and good development practices can pro- mote the generation of maintainable code. In what specific ways does Ada9x promote program maintainability that are *not* provided by C++ or Eiffel? > (I'm not sure of the best way to state the last. Everyone in this >group should know that I mean something like: If you are writing more >than a half-million lines of code in any language other than Ada, you >should have your head and budget examined. But that doesn't fit in a >single snappy line.) It's also ludicrous. In any event, given the first three items, the last is implied. > I also have to object to the "efficient" in the C++ line. Any good >C++ programmer knows how to skate around the holes in the ice. But >doing that results in "C-like" code, not C++. The last sentence is untrue for most definitions of "C-like". C++ does not require the programmer to use a procedural style to gain efficiency. -- c'iao, milo ================================================================ John DiCamillo Pinin' for the fjords? milod@netcom.com What kind of talk is that?