home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nnrp.info.ucla.edu!jmartin
- From: jmartin@cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 21 Feb 1996 08:28:27 GMT
- Organization: University of California, Los Angeles
- Message-ID: <4gel3b$1hku@saba.info.ucla.edu>
- References: <312515DF.7D3B@cmlj.demon.co.uk> <4gad29$ddp@druid.borland.com> <4gb4r3$psg@qualcomm.com> <Dn3Krz.6yw@research.att.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: may.cs.ucla.edu
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0.b3.0 #9 (NOV)
-
- ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
-
- >In article <4gb4r3$psg@qualcomm.com> x!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!usenet writes:
-
- >> Given 2 equally good programmers one in C++ and one in Ada, most
- >> people will agree that Ada code is easier to read than the C++ code.
-
- >Most? I have yet to meet anyone who knows both Ada and C++
- >well enough to be able to make a reasoned comparison.
- >--
- > --Andrew Koenig
- > ark@research.att.com
-
- Baah! What you really saying is that you have not met any Ada people.
-
- I know both (well Ada83 and some of the new features of Ada95). I
- have been using only C++ for the last few years. And anyone with a
- basic understanding of imperative software engineering language design
- will acknowledge that Ada has better readability characteristics over
- C/C++. (Unfortunately, what CS program actually teaches,researches or
- cares about imperative computer language design?) Ada was designed for
- readability, C (and C++) was designed for hacking in an evolutionary
- manner. Just read "Evolution...C++" when BS starts talking about
- brain damaged or broken features or "too cute for its own good" or
- "the anti-keyword militia" or "backwards (philosophic) compatibility",
- its a good indication of a place where readability/understandability
- suffered in C++.
-
- Jay
-