TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:16:45 -0700
Reply-To:
AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (31 lines)
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Mark Lundquist wrote:

> Another one that I've noticed is the truism that Ada is supposed to be
> good for programming in the large, or the humongous, or whatever.

  [ snip, snip, snip ]

> This theme is repeated by Ada apologists and vendors in the same voice
> or with the same motivations as the "reliability" theme, and with the
> same effects.

  Howabout this, with no apology.

  C is a universal assembler.  No argument there, I hope.

  Consider the example of  a little girl who puts on her
  mother's dress, shoes, and make-up.  At a distance she might even
  resemble a grown-up.  On closer inspection, you find she is still a
  little girl.  C++ is simply C dressed up on object-oriented clothes.
  At a distance, viewed by someone who doesn't know any better, C++ does
  look like a high-level language.  When you get to know it well, it
  becomes clear that it is still a universal assembler wearing OOP clothes
  that do not quite fit.

  Richard Riehle
  AdaWorks
  Suite 30
  2555 Park Blvd
  Palo Alto, CA 94306
  www.adawoks.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2