Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!ucsd!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!nsc!rfg
From: rfg@nsc.nsc.com (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Ada vs C++
Message-ID: <8252@nsc.nsc.com>
Date: 4 Dec 88 02:51:10 GMT
References: <197@imspw6.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@nsc.nsc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 14

In article <197@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes:
>C++ actually IS the language Ada was supposed to be and never will be, the
>main language which DOD (and a lot of other organizations) need.

I used to be a big Ada fan.  Now I'm a big C++ fan.  Nonetheless, I
have to point out the error in the above statement.

C++ *is not* the language Ada was supposed to be.  Specifically, Ada is
*standardized* while C++ is not (yet).  That can be good and bad.

Actually, this is probably the main reason that I now prefer C++ to Ada.
Everything about Ada (in particular, the warts) was set in concrete long ago.
In the case of C++, the language is still evolving and there is still time
to prevent it from becomming another hoplessly ugly beast.