larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (11/22/88)
Can we all agree not to waste time and space on the recent attack on Ada
posted from the C++ news group? None of the points are new, several are
flatly wrong, all the rest have been intelligently rebutted here at least
half a dozen times.
This is not meant to denigrate C++ itself. As a C enthusiast who well knows
its problems, I'm very happy with Bjarne Stroustrup's work. I recommend C++
to other C programmers who've matured enough to want something better than C,
and to the increasingly fewer project managers who're still afraid of Ada.
Nor is this meant to fend off suggested improvements of Ada inspired by C++,
Objective C, Eiffel, SmallTalk, or whatever. But I refuse to listen to
anyone who doesn't understand that nothing is perfect and that design
decisions ALWAYS involve trade-offs.
Larry @ VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOVpattis@june.cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis) (11/22/88)
It wasn't to start a debate or ask for a rebuttal. I was just interested in the type of information posted about Ada elsewhere on the net, maybe information (disinformation?) not normally seen by people reading this newsgroup (and, maybe best left unread). Rich
rich@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard Pettit) (11/24/88)
In article <881121144228.1a27@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: >Can we all agree not to waste time and space on the recent attack on Ada >posted from the C++ news group? None of the points are new, several are >....... But this is the first good discussion I've seen on this group in months..... Call it "constructive arguing". Rich -- rich@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov