home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Path: news.sccsi.com!leeweyr!bill
- From: bill@leeweyr.sccsi.com (Bill Lee)
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Message-ID: <1996Feb22.004613.13307@leeweyr.sccsi.com>
- Organization: Lee Aerie
- References: <4gad29$ddp@druid.borland.com> <4gb4r3$psg@qualcomm.com> <eg4tslzr18.fsf@trost.ii.uib.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 00:46:13 GMT
-
- In article <eg4tslzr18.fsf@trost.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
- >>>>>> "Nasser" == Nasser Abbasi <nabbasi@qualcomm.com> writes:
- >
- > Nasser> Given 2 equally good programmers one in C++ and one in
- > Nasser> Ada, most people will agree that Ada code is easier to
- > Nasser> read than the C++ code.
- > : : :
- > Nasser> A code that is easier to read, is easier to maintain.
- >
- >I'm certainly not qualified to parttake in this fla^H^H^Hheated debate
- >about Ada vs. C++ -- however, I believe Booch (in "Object oriented
- >analysis and design") cites an example program that shrunk 90% when
- >recoded into C++ from Ada. Question is, is this typical? And if so,
- >is it easier to read/maintain 100K lines of Ada than 10K lines C++?
- >
- >-kzm
- >
- >
-
-
- In your own words, you are "certainly not qualified". Go ask those
- who are what the same components resulted in when recoded in Ada95.
- I've heard the author say something like "Somewhat less than the
- C++ code." (David? Care to comment? Perhaps you already have.)
-
- I'm sorry for the flame, but this kind of out-of-context comment
- from the self-proclaimed "certainly not qualified" gets to me on occasion.
-
- Regards,
-
- Bill Lee
-
-