Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]

[milod@netcom.com (John DiCamillo)]

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>In article <milodCx0K79.11n@netcom.com> 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?