> > The reason for this rambling introduction is the fact that Ada's current
> > main competition, Java, is not in the quote above.  ....
> That's right.  So, we don't know for Java.  We do know for C++.
> The point is that there is *GOOD DATA* that says that Ada is good.
> Java may be good also, but we don't know yet.
> Would you prefer to place your bets with something that is known
> to be good, or something that is an unknown?  It depends, but my bais
> is towards that which is known to be good.

My bias is toward Ada, because just by actually studying Java, my
_subjective_ opinion is that it is much better than C or C++ but not as
good as Ada.  My point was that in terms of advocacy, the Jones' letter
might encourage people to get away from C--but they are already doing
that; they're going to Java.  At present, not only is Java Ada's biggest
competition, it's also competing for the same _reasons_: portability,
standardization, reliability, ...

So empirical evidence comparing Java with Ada is far more valuable now
than repeating the well-known (and well-ignored) evidence of Ada's
superiority over C.