> > 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.