Ben Brogsol makes many excellent points, which I won't repeat. I
would add the following notes:
> 1) Java has a lighter-weight syntax for OOP. This is definitely true, and I
> found that Java's approach to multiple inheritance through interface
> is conceptually simpler than Ada's techniques (generics or access
Near as I can tell, Java has NO multiple inheritance. Yes, you can
test membership in more than one class hierarchy, but I didn't see a
way to inherit methods from more than one class. I feel somewhat
silly mentioning this, since my best introduction to Java came from a
tutorial by Ben, so maybe he could enlighten me further if I am
> 2) Java has a more extensive class library than Ada. Agreed (with some envy
> although with several current Ada vendors (such as Intermetrics, Aonix and
> one can interface to Java classes.
Part of my bold claim in my earlier email was my knowledge that Aonix
supported compilation to the JVM and interfaces to the AWT.
> 4) Java is hot new technology, and universities need to teach it in order
> to compete for students. I understand this motivation, but my suggestion
> would be to introduce Java _after_ students have learned Ada. This way
> they get to learn first a language that is design methodology-neutral
> and that instills good habits of program development.
One of our advantages at the Academy is that we don't compete for
students in the same way as most of academia. They whine about not
learning Java (it is an optional course) in the major, but I'd much
rather send them up in a plane programmed in Ada than Java.
Martin C. Carlisle, Asst Prof of Comp Sci,
US Air Force Academy, [log in to unmask]
DISCLAIMER: The content of this message does not
necessarily reflect the opinions of the US Air
Force Academy, or the US government