home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
- From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
- Subject: Re: Review of "Ada & C++: A Business Case Analysis
- Message-ID: <1992Jul30.155145.10561@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
- References: <2329@nic.cerf.net> <1992Jul28.213215.25806@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:51:45 GMT
- Lines: 34
-
- In <1992Jul28.213215.25806@fcom.cc.utah.edu> val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:
-
- >jonesm@nic.cerf.net (Matthew Jones) writes:
- >: Recently I got a copy of:
- >: Overiew of U.S. Air Force Report
- >: Ada and C++: A Business Case Analysis
- >: Form G75-1191
- >: AdaCPLUS.HLP
- >:
- >: This paper supposedly compares Ada and C++ and of course find Ada
- >: to be superior. I found this paper to be filled with errors and
- >: very questionable opinion. Here are a few comments
-
- >Here are a few more comments:
-
- >3. Did you notice in the summary that C++ does better in compile-time and
- >run-time speed, but Ada is better for real-time? Aren't run-time speed and
- >real-time performance the same thing? I wonder what other glaring errors
- >were made in the reports that didn't make it through to the summary.
-
- No, they aren't the same thing at all. I wonder what other glaring
- errors made it into your evaluations of various languages to arrive at
- whatever it is you prefer to use.
-
- >Oh, and before anyone thinks that I'm a C++ bigot let me tell you: I've never
- >used C++, but I use Ada at work. I'd rather not use Ada.
-
- So, what would you prefer to use, and why?
-
- --
- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
- in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
-