> > I took the Ada vs. C++ "trade study" sent out a few days ago,
> > and tried to turn it into an FAQ for such a comparison. Here
> > are the results. Totally unbiased, of course ;-).
> Taking the risk of repeating myself, once again I have to conclude
> that Ada is only an option for embedded or realtime systems.
Because I believe Ada is particularly good for realtime and embedded
systems should not be construed as meaning it is bad for other
domains. However, one must generally pick one battle to fight at a time.
> Well, maybe that is the truth, and I should pick up Java again.
Java provides only a small improvement over C++, and that improvement
is almost exclusively one at run-time. Java still has much of the
poor human engineering inherited from C++ and thence from C.
Ada clearly provides an order of magnitude more compile-time checking
than Java, and the careful human-engineering that allows the compiler
to catch many more "silly" errors before they make it to run-time.
However, the primary target of my FAQ is the big engineering companies
like Raytheon, who need to understand how poor is C++ as a fit for
their needs in the mission critical, embedded, and real-time arenas.
I certainly am not trying to imply that C++ is a great fit for other
Presuming you believe Ada is a great fit for your domain of interest,
feel free to create a new FAQ targeted to that domain. I am probably
not much of an expert in your domain, and hence would not be a great
spokesperson for it.
> -- Jerry van Dijk | Leiden, Holland
> -- Team Ada | [log in to unmask]
> -- see http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk