Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ubvax!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 91 22:43:21 GMT References: <11966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Mar15.224626.27077@aero.org> <1991Mar16.000624.2513@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1991Mar16.205228.4268@grebyn.com> <1991Mar21.024445.8746@grebyn.com> <1991Mar21 Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 26 >Ada itself is neither good nor bad, merely unwieldy. The same can be >said for C++. In what way are these languages, which provide strong typing, separation of specification and implementation, opaque types, genericity, and exception handling "unwieldy"? I would counter that a language that permits functions accepting an indeterminate number of arguments of arbitrary type--such as C--is considerably MORE unwieldy. It is CERTAINLY more dangerous. >From a pragmatic point of view, however, there are a lot more (and a >lot better) programming tools for supporting C and C++ than there are >for Ada I would agree with "a lot more", but not with "a lot better". We provide tools for Ada development that scale to the largest software projects ever attempted, with integrated CM, full symbolic everything, incremental compilation, dynamic type binding (yes, even in a statically-bound language), universal host capabilities, and some of the tightest back-end code generated anywhere. Those familiar with our system consistently deem it best of show among all software development environments. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."