From: "Mike Silva" <mjsilva AT jps DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <3868DC8F DOT A0B00483 AT turku DOT crosswinds DOT net> <Gn8a4.7591$78 DOT 34016 AT afrodite DOT telenet-ops DOT be> <386998e5 AT news1 DOT jps DOT net> <84ge82$29fi$2 AT news DOT gate DOT net>
Subject: Re: What the hell is ADA?
Lines: 39
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Message-ID: <8_Ra4.53$Jx3.10734@news.wenet.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:35:37 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.169.137.33
X-Complaints-To: news AT wenet DOT net
X-Trace: news.wenet.net 946596868 206.169.137.33 (Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:34:28 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:34:28 PST
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY wrote in message <84ge82$29fi$2 AT news DOT gate DOT net>...
>In article <386998e5 AT news1 DOT jps DOT net>, "Mike Silva" <mjsilva AT jps DOT net> wrote:
>>Ada was actually designed to meet a Department of Defense requirement for
a
>>language to develop very large and reliable embedded programs.  The
current
>>version, Ada95, is an excellent general-purpose language that can be
>>compared in scope to C++, while making it much easier to write correct,
>>error-free code -- hence its frequent use in aircraft systems, traffic
>>control, medical equipment, etc.  It's also got built-in concurrency.
>
>   Ada is a nightmare. While it may look good on paper it sucks
>for embedded programs. True it was designed by committe for the
>military but it does not comprare with C.
> Many military programs because ot the nature of a high reliabilty
>being required do not use ADA. The intent at one time years ago
>was to go to ADA with new projects but it has not worked as
>advertised and is waste of money.
>Lets hope it dies a quick death.
>Also the newer ada compliers are really based on C++ compliers
>and there is really nothing ADA can do that C or C++ can not do
>better.


Since this is not the right forum for such a "discussion", I'll only post
this one reply, then leave it be.  Your comments are pure nonsense.  I've
programmed embedded systems in C for 20 years, and Ada does many, many
things better (can't actually think of anything C does better...).  If you
really think you can support your view, come by comp.lang.ada and have at
it.  I'll leave you with one little tidbit, a table from an independent
paper (Lawlis) on programming language evaluation:

http://www.adaic.org/docs/reports/lawlis/5.htm#t2

Mike