Alternatives to ailing Ada.

Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[henderson was no auteur]

Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
C# totally blows Ada away.

Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Nick Roberts]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:37:18 +1000, henderson was no auteur
<morbid_dreams@cia.gov> strongly typed:

>Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
>C# totally blows Ada away.

Does it really? This is surely a very important question.

C# may have lots of fancy features that Ada 95 doesn't, but I suspect it
may well have some weaknesses compared to Ada 95. Nevertheless, where there
is a choice, should the discerning software engineer now choose Ada or C#?

This thread IS NOT to become a language warzone. Keep it factual,
objective, polite, and concise.

-- 
Nick Roberts

RE: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Robert C. Leif]

If the Ada compiler vendors desire to obtain a decent share of the
largest software market, one or more of them should target their
compiler to the Microsoft intermediate language.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of henderson was no
auteur
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 2:37 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
C# totally blows Ada away.

Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Nick Roberts]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:33:25 -0700, "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>
strongly typed:

>If the Ada compiler vendors desire to obtain a decent share of the
>largest software market, one or more of them should target their
>compiler to the Microsoft intermediate language.

Possibly some people might find it more palatable if this were referred to
as "the CLI of the international standard ECMA-335".

-- 
Nick Roberts

Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Jim Rogers]

henderson was no auteur wrote:

> Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
> C# totally blows Ada away.
> 

Visual Studio.NET is an environment, not a language.
C# has some features of Ada. It has a lot of features of Java.

I would not look to C# for efficiency. Speaking of "out of the box"
experiences, look at the C# concept of "boxing". This, in summary,
is the tendency of C# to convert primitive types to instances of a
class implicitly. That is, you have no control over the timing of
this dynamic allocation. To a naive programmer this makes C# look
easier to use. It certainly removes important levels of control and
efficiency from the programmer.

The C# threading model is a strange combination of Java threads,
WIN32 threads, and a very questionable implementation of a monitor.

C# still does not allow you to define your own primitive types like Ada.
C# has no built in interface to any other language except through the
.NET interface. C# must have the .NET virtual machine to run, ruling out
any RTOS.

None of this blows Ada away.

Microsoft continues to state that .NET will be implemented on additional
operating systems. So far that is just hyp. .NET, and by association, C#,
are prisoners of Microsoft operating systems. Ada is proven to work well
across a wide range of operating systems.

Jim Rogers

Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[Joe Vlietstra]

Jim Rogers wrote:
> henderson was no auteur wrote:
> 
>> Now there is Visual Studio.NET.
>> C# totally blows Ada away.
>>
> 
> Visual Studio.NET is an environment, not a language.
> C# has some features of Ada. It has a lot of features of Java.

Can we stop feeding this troll?

Re: Alternatives to ailing Ada.

[chris.danx]

Nick Roberts wrote:

> This thread IS NOT to become a language warzone. Keep it factual,
> objective, polite, and concise.

Or, even better, ignore obvious trolls!



-- 
for personal replies change 'spamoff' to 'chris'