TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG
Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:47:42 +1000
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Why Not Ada"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
From: Geoff Bull <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (17 lines) 
Johnson Phillip E wrote:
>
> >   Arrogant-Bastard wrote:
> >      specifically the design-by-committee approach

> I have always found this particularly funny when espoused by a C++ advocate.
> The look on their face when I show them a copy of a report from the AT&T C++
> language Committee is priceless.  They do not want to comment on C++
> enhancements being designed by committee.


And C99 draft standard I have is labelled "Committee Draft".
A-B will have to stick with K&R C.

BTW, using page count as a metric, C99 has a bloat factor almost identical
to that of Ada95.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2