home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: mailhub.scitec.com.au!ramsesy
- From: ramsesy@rd.scitec.com.au (Ramses Youhana)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Date: 16 Feb 1996 07:37:33 GMT
- Organization: SCITEC LIMITED, Sydney, Australia.
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4g1c7t$l5@mailhub.scitec.com.au>
- References: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4etcmm$lpd@nova.dimensional.com> <3114d8fb.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <4f85h4$cml@hacgate2.hac.com> <4f8bfn$oct@qualcomm.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: scitec7.scitec.com.au
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Nasser Abbasi (nabbasi@qualcomm.com) wrote:
- > GNAT is free.
-
- > Anyway, I think the reason commerical companies do not use Ada as much is
- > not really due to the cost of the compilers. It is the fact that once a
- > company starts using one langauge (say C++) there is a large inertia
- > behind this. It will become difficult to have the company switch
- > from using one language to another once they have written allot of
- > their software in one language. Programmers get used to using one
- > language, using support tools for that language, you have training
- > courses, skill base is build in one language, and then no manager will
- > want to risk (or be brave enough) or take a chance in trying something
- > new.
-
- I agree. Infact many shy away from changing the compiler they use on a
- specific project that has been around for years, unless the current compiler
- they are using is so full of bugs that they must change, or the compiler
- is no longer appropriate for their purpose.
-
- Ramses.
-