TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Victor Giddings <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Victor Giddings <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:55:21 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
At 11:18 AM 6/7/99 -0400, Terry J. Westley wrote:
>We developed and maintain a real-time, distributed electronic
>warfare simulation.  Approximately 80% of it is Ada; the rest
>is C, Tcl/Tk, SQL, and FORTRAN.
>
>It has been recently suggested that, rather than converting
>to Ada 95 (well, really, it's converting from VADS to GNAT
>or Rational Apex), we spend the same money to investigate
>converting to C++.
>

Flame on ;-)

This is nuts!

Flame off.

Our experience (and that of several customers) is that the effort to
transition for Ada83 to Ada95 is less than effort to port from one C++
compiler family to another. We build and maintain two commercial product
families for embedded and real-time systems, one for Ada95 and one for C++.
Also, the effort it takes to support multiple Ada95 compilers is less than
that needed to accommodate a version upgrade of a single C++ compiler.

So after you've made the investment to convert to C++, expect to keep on
paying. And, if you have change your C++ compiler, expect to start over.

Victor Giddings                             Phone: 703-295-6500
Senior Product Engineer                Fax: 703-295-6501
Objective Interface Systems           [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2