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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff)
Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <ROGOFF.96Oct16142012@sccm.Stanford.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189906116
references: <ROGOFF.96Oct14095012@sccm.Stanford.EDU>
 <DzBM79.52n.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: /u/rogoff/.organization
reply-to: rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


mg@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mitch Gart) writes:
   Brian Rogoff (rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
   : Besides GC, which is arguable, no one has 
   : listed any *language* advantages of Java over Ada. 

   Calling superclass methods is easy in Java and hard in Ada:

   <snip>

Thanks Mitch. This is the best example I've seen so far. Interfaces are 
second, although I think Ada allows you to do more, like write real mixins, 
although it takes more work. 

In the post that you wrote, which I responded to, you said that there were 
numerous linguistic advantages of Java over Ada 95 (and vice versa!) so that 
it was a toss-up in the choice between the two. I still think that is 
incorrect, and that Java has few advantages over Ada 95. If "OO" is the only 
style/paradigm that interests you, then those advantages may be more 
compelling, since to get the same effect as Java the Ada will always be more 
verbose, since you need to make your classes access types. However, I find 
the virtue of Ada to be its multiparadigm nature, and the fact that it allows 
high and low level programming. If there is to be an Ada 0X, I wouldn't want 
it to be "just an OO language". Eiffel exists, and we all know where to find 
it.

   Calling the parent type's operation is common in OOP and is painful to 
   code, and read, in Ada.

   - Mitch

This is a good example, and I am convinced (for now ;-).

Do you have any other examples? I've already noted that I don't agree that 
obj.method() syntax is inherently better, and I disagree with your statement 
that it is true in any sense that that syntax is more readable or 
understandable. I think R. Dewar gave a good counterargument to that 
statement.

-- Brian