Re: ada vs. cpp

[Pi <pi3_1415926536@yahoo.ca>]

Ralph M�ritz wrote :

> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in
> news:slrn9rn660.uu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no:
> 
> > On 3 Oct 2001 20:42:29 GMT, Ralph M�ritz wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 
> > Please tell a bit about your project.
> > 
> > Preben Randhol
> > 
> 
> It's a text-based (roguelike) rpg, I haven't yet gotten far but it's going
> to be big! Uses objects (thus cpp instead C) to eliminate much repetitive
> code for stats storage and access. A header file for each component
> (dungeon.cpp --> dungeon.h etc.)

Hmm, Objects ...

1st : Ada will help you find more bugs at compile time than C++
So your developpement time tends to be faster.
But consider that interactions with the OS are more difficult.
Not much more, but slightly.

Remember that Ada is at his very best if you give him few
input, billions of calculations on numbers and than few output.

You say that it's text-based.
Do you have to parse the text-input?
In this case I would consider using Perl[1] for the parsing
and than the actual treatement in Ada.
(Strings aren't Ada's strength)

2nd : Objects : 
as long as you dont need special features you're fine with Ada.
Just consider a package like an object and you're cool.

3rd : Heritage
Hmm, package heritage is ok, tagged types work too

4th : Polymorphism
Argh, only possible with tagged type and true crap, so stick with C++
Or you can try to hand-code it, but it's far less flexible and
error-prone. But IMNSHO still better than Ada's tagged type variant.

5th : Multiple Heritage
Not possible with Ada.

[1] Perl is your worst nightmare for big project,
but the best language for text parsing out there,
so if you use it, use it *only* for the parsing.

-- 
3,14159265359
who suffered Ada's "polymorphism" at university