Xref: utzoo comp.object:3657 comp.lang.c++:13918
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!devnull!elmer.Berkeley.EDU!kelley
From: kelley@elmer.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Kelley)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and waitresses (long)
Message-ID: <285@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
Date: 6 Jun 91 17:55:45 GMT
References: <1991Jun6.004107.25123@netcom.COM> <2325@media03.UUCP> <1991May24.015856.9979@csusac.csus.edu> <4034@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <1991May25.073216.15040@netcom.COM> <948@trotsky.mrcu>
Sender: news@devnull.mpd.tandem.com
Followup-To: comp.object
Lines: 22

In article <1991Jun6.004107.25123@netcom.COM>, jls@netcom.COM (Jim
Showalter) writes:
> 
> [ stuff deleted ]
>
> Note that this in no way indicates a change to my bedrock conviction that
> Ada is the superior technical choice between the two languages for
engineering
> large complex systems.
> -- 

Could you expand on this, Jim?  Given that C++ is slated for both parameterized
types and exception handling, will your conviction still hold?  It seems to me
that Ada has an edge on C++ for its concurrency support (the rendezvous), but
falls way behind C++, not having late binding (virtual) functions.  Or
is it just a practical matter of C++ still paying out too much rope to
hang a project with? Comments?

Mike Kelley
Tandem Computers, Austin, TX
kelley@mpd.tandem.com
(512) 244-8830 / Fax (512) 244-8247