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.