Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site anwar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!hhb!anwar!jos
From: jos@anwar.UUCP (John Schneider)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang
Subject: ADA
Message-ID: <151@anwar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 11:09:03 EST
Article-I.D.: anwar.151
Posted: Fri Apr 12 11:09:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 02:51:57 EST
Organization: HHB-Softron, Mahwah, NJ
Lines: 34
Xref: linus net.arch:888 net.lang:1331



________________________________________________________________________________

I for one have read a number of ada books, programed with 3 different ada
compilers on 2 different operating system (VMS and UNIX) and I also
think that 

			ADA SUCKS!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________

After reading reviews on ADA like the above, it seems to me that all of
them have negative attitudes. I have yet to read any comments that address 
the real issues behind ADA. The authors of these reviews would probably
benefit from reading a book on object oriented programming. The real issue
behind ADA is that it supports a static implementation of object oriented
programming for general von Neumann architectures, not that the DoD has 
mandated its use. (Other such languages are Modula II, Mainsail and Smalltalk).
It is clear that ADA can support a highly abstract method of software 
implementation, while is is not so clear that other common block-structured
languages do more than offer data-structuring and simple run-time and type
checks.

It may prove true that the learning curve for efficient use of ADA and
languages like it will be steep, but that is no reason to be closed minded
about using an object oriented approach to programming. I would appreciate
any net discussion on software and hardware approaches to object oriented
programming. 

					John Schneider
					{decvax,alegra}!philabs!hhb!jos