Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: Date: 29 Mar 91 22:00:12 GMT References: <9103070342.AA07462@.nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu ..> <1991Mar22.120946.1@happy.colorado.edu> <299@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar25.145441.1@happy.colorado.edu> <1991Mar28.104619.1@happy.colorado.edu> Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 26 >BUT, I think that to sell [Ada] as the be-all, end-all, >world's greatest SE language is a major shuck. There are languages out there >that support many of the same features, But not all at the same TIME. See, that's the difference: one language has exceptions, but lacks genericity. Another language has strong typing, but lacks representation clauses. Etc etc etc. People fault Ada for being a "kitchen sink" language, but I prefer to describe it as the only language that has the minimal spanning set of features necessary to attack problems ranging from the very fast and tiny (e.g. device drivers) to the incredibly large (e.g. the Space Station), and everywhere in between. About the only area I know of where Ada is lame is AI, but I don't find that very surprising, somehow. >If Ada >supporters wish to persuade other people to use the language, then they had >better do more than knock the languages that other people already use. I keep trying to make this point: I am one of those "other people"--I didn't start out day 1 writing in Ada. I've worked in Pascal, C, Modula-2, FORTRAN, BASIC, COBOL, and Lisp. My appreciation of Ada was forged in the fires of frustration caused by those other languages. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software engineering, in which case I've borrowed them from incredibly smart people.