home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.dfw.net!not-for-mail
- From: dweller@dfw.net (David Weller)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 16 Feb 1996 16:16:03 -0600
- Organization: DFWNet -- Public Internet Access
- Message-ID: <4g2vn3$rgi@dfw.dfw.net>
- References: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <3114d8fb.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <4f5h5t$f13@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4g1bgf$l5@mailhub.scitec.com.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: dfw.dfw.net
-
- In article <4g1bgf$l5@mailhub.scitec.com.au>,
- Ramses Youhana <ramsesy@rd.scitec.com.au> wrote:
- >Another thing not mentioned is that Ada is far more complicated to learn
- >fully than is C/C++. The complexity of the language can add to an increase
- >in the probabilty of bugs being introduced and also adds to an increase in
- >project maintanace costs.
- >
-
- Compared to C++? You are wrong. There are fewer features in C++, yet
- the (draft) reference manual is larger than Ada 95 (not that this is
- necessarily a good measure, but rather that a language that is less
- complex would hopefully require less "langauge" to specify it). My
- personal experience with Ada 95 and C++ indicates the exact opposite
- of your conclusion. I have a feeling you haven't used Ada 95 very
- much to make such claims.
-
- --
- GNAT = GNAT is Not an Ada Translator
- ==Ada 95 Booch Components: www.ocsystems.com/booch or www.dfw.net/~dweller==
- Reality: Work, Work, Work, Guitar. | Plugged: Fender Telecaster Deluxe
- Fantasy: Guitar, Guitar, Guitar, Work(ha!) | Unplugged: Yamaha CG-150SA
-