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
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:03:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-To:
Pascal Obry <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
Pascal Obry wrote

>So the main idea is more a language gives you a high level of abstraction
>more work does it have to build your program, but less work *you* have
>to write it.

I certainly agree.  But I think almost any reader of the Clean mailing
list
would also agree, including the person who commented on slow Ada
compilers.
Clean would generally be regarded as a higher-level, more abstract
language
than Ada (which is not to say that I think it is a better language
overall).

- Jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2