TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 16:12:32 -0800
text/plain (43 lines)
To: Wesley Groleau et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.

There are two major disadvantages of C++. 1) The Java advertising machine
will kill it. 2) Raytheon because it is demonstrably negligent in using an
unsafe language, C++, will be liable for punitive damages when the
inevitable catastrophe occurs. This is even stupider than manufacturing
silicon breast implants. I am sorry that the shareholders and employees of
Raytheon are paying the salaries and providing other compensation for a
group of technologically incompetent managers.

The arguments about the choice of language being insignificant are wrong.
The source text is a manufactured product. The same total quality rules
apply to source text and executable code as any other part of a product
where human life is involved.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wesley Groleau
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 6:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Another Ada vs. C++ fight (long)
>
>
>
>
> Here's another request for assistance in a battle that looks like
> it's already
> lost.  I unfortunately don't have the time to adequately answer all of the
> misleading (a few are downright false) claims here.  Anyone is
> welcome to throw
> in response to specific items.  Please, though, let's not have
> several reposts
> of the entire presentation just to answer one line.  Of
> particular value are
> quantified empirical evidence.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Programming Language Trade Study
>
> Introduction/Scope
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2