home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: camelot.dsccc.com!kcline
- From: kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Cline)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 18 Mar 1996 18:51:07 GMT
- Organization: DSC Communications Corporation Switch Products Division
- Message-ID: <4ikbar$g0k@tpd.dsccc.com>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <4i19mg$vkt@azure.dstc.edu.au> <4i4cf2$crm@sun152.spd.dsccc.com> <adaworksDoBsy8.Brz@netcom.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sun132.spd.dsccc.com
-
- In article <adaworksDoBsy8.Brz@netcom.com>,
- AdaWorks <adaworks@netcom.com> wrote:
- >Kevin Cline (kcline@sun152.spd.dsccc.com) wrote:
- >
- >
- >: In fact there were several serious flaws in the Ada-83 language
- >: that made development of hosted applications in Ada-83 more difficult
- >: than developing them in C or C++.
- >
- > I would almost agree, except my view is that Ada 83 shortcomings were
- > more in the category of incoveniences than "flaws." But we are dealing
- > with the new Ada standard.
- >
-
- I suppose every language design error could be classified as an
- inconvenience, since there is almost always some workaround available.
- But the following missing features in Ada-83 were serious problems
- when developing hosted applications and directly led to the rejection
- of Ada by the marketplace:
- 1. Inability to pass a function or procedure as an argument.
- This went far beyond an "inconvenience" for those of us attempting
- to use event-driven GUI libraries. There was no portable
- work-around for this problem.
-
- 2. No standard interface to any OS facility more advanced
- than line-at-a-time input/output. Also very difficult to
- work around, particularly if trying to produce a portable program.
-
- --
- Kevin Cline
-