TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML 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]>
Subject: Re: Ada USP
From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:01:13 -0500
Reply-To: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
> (Booch, ... hasn't
> made many public statements either way about Ada, though his company,
> Rational Corp., is one of the leading Ada vendors.)

Says a guy who's not fully up on UML yet: Rational Rose, though it supports
Ada 95, is clearly designed for C++  I suspect there's a strong correspondence
to UML.

> "If you want good real-time software, take advantage of Ada 95's powerful
> OO features."
>
> Once more:
>
> "The powerful real-time and OO features of Ada 95 make it the ideal
> language for developing modern RT software."
>
> Now allow me defend my choice of this concept as Ada's USP.
>
> It's a true statement -- easily backed up by a recitation of Ada's
> features.  Most knowledgable experts would agree.  It will "wash".

Without endorsing either side, let me point out that a lot of real-time
people--some of the Ada-philes--advise NOT using OO features for RT code.

> When the average programmer learns about a new feature, he can hardly wait
> to use it.  Programmers almost literally drool over features.  To most

Not all of them.  "If I had a dollar" for everytime I saw someone hit
backspace a zillion times in vi AFTER I showed them how to use the
"number-command" feature.....

ATOM RSS1 RSS2