Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!igor!thumper!loren From: loren@thumper.uucp (Loren S. Rosen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ Message-ID: <358@igor.Rational.COM> Date: 30 Nov 88 01:29:27 GMT References: <197@imspw6.UUCP> Sender: news@igor.Rational.COM Reply-To: loren@thumper.UUCP (Loren S. Rosen) Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA Lines: 60 I don't want to get dragged too deeply into a debate about the merits of Ada versus C++, but since Rational has been mentioned I thought a few corrections were in order. In article <197@imspw6.UUCP> bob@imspw6.UUCP (Bob Burch) writes: > >From Ted Holden, HTE: > >The only thing I could imagine compiling Ada that fast would be a >Rational (for the uninformed, an $800,000 Ada Software Development work >station). Ever wonder why you don't need $800,000 software development >workstations for C or C++? True, a Rational R1000 can cost $800,000 in some configurations. So can a Vax. A R1000 is not what people usually mean by the term 'workstation': it's a large multiuser system. (In the $800k configuration it has 32 megabytes of memory, and 2 gigabytes of disk, for example). The cost per user is pretty comparable to that of a similarly equipped Vax. >Don't worry, it's only the taxpayers' money. Fact is, R1000's are being used, not just on Government projects where use of Ada has been mandated, but on a number of commercial, scientific, and engineering applications. Nobody forced Ada on these people-- they chose it themselves. >...despite the fact that Ada has been out since 1979, Experts >are just now getting one or two compilers to perform close to acceptably >on today's VAX, 68000 etc. machines... Several acceptable compilers have been around for 2-4 years now. >What about tomorrow's machines, >88000 and SPARK based? Figure they'll have Ada compilers for them by >1999? The answer is undoubtably yes. The big time cost in getting good Ada compilers has already been paid. Now a new target means a new back-end, which, while a non-trivial task, should take less than ten years to develop. I would expect to see several compilers for the 88000 and SPARC appear in the next two years or so. >The funny thing is, Ada was INTENDED to be the one language >which could run on EVERY computer, from embedded system to mainframe, and >handle ALL applications; part of the idea was that the same programmers >could always go from project A (tank guns) to project B (DBMS system) >with no retraining. Ada was primarily designed for use in embedded systems. It so happens that the goals of large embedded systems design are similar enough to those of other large systems that the language is useful for other applications. I think the expectation is that programmers can go from one project (tank guns) to another similar project (airplane guns) with relatively little retraining (or from one DBMS system to another). There are other hurdles in getting from tank guns to DBMS systems than the language(s) in use. -- Loren Rosen Rational 3320 Scott Blvd Santa Clara CA. 95054 (408) 496-3600 internet: loren@rational.com usenet: uunet!igor!loren