home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Path: netcom.com!tgm
- From: tgm@netcom.com (Thomas G. McWilliams)
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Message-ID: <tgmDMx2u1.B7B@netcom.com>
- Organization: Jot-Em Down Store and Library
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
- References: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4etcmm$lpd@nova.dimensional.com> <3114d8fb.5a455349@zesi.ruhr.de> <4f5h5t$f13@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4g1bgf$l5@mailhub.scitec.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:06:00 GMT
- Sender: tgm@netcom5.netcom.com
-
- 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.
-
- The problem with C/C++ is the subtle ways in which errors creep into
- code, primarily due to the many ambiguous and implementation defined
- constructs which the C/C++ languages offer. Given enough support tools
- and a rigorous adherence to strict coding standards, and embracing all
- available safety features, then C/C++ might be able to approach the
- quality potential of Ada. In general, quality C/C++ code requires
- significantly more effort than equivalent Ada code. Note that I am not
- referring to just the coding but to overall QA effort needed to conclude
- that a solution implemented in C/C++ is equivalent from a quality
- standpoint to a similar solution implemented in Ada.
-
-
-