Content deleted Content added
→reads as an ad: new section |
→reads as an ad: Nope - just mentioning the good things. |
||
Line 358:
This article reads as an ad - it doesn't even touch any criticism of Ada and fails to mention why this language is so rarely used, outside of US Military --[[Special:Contributions/195.113.21.159|195.113.21.159]] ([[User talk:195.113.21.159|talk]]) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
=== maybe because there noting wrong worth mentioning ===
I use Ada in daily and there is nothing I like to criticise. At least nothing substantial worth mention. Note that when I was using C++ there was a lot I liked to criticise about C++.
I could try to dispels some of the [[Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt|FUD]] around Ada like:
; to expensive : there is a free Ada compiler as part of the [[GNU_Compiler_Collection]].
; to complex : the ISO standard for Ada 2005 is a whooping 3.8% larger then the ISO standard for C++ 2003. And with current amount CPU and Memory available it does not matter any more.
; no programmers : The only which has some merits. But it's not the languages fault that companies do not want to train there workforce.
: only used by US Military : Well, look [http://www.adacore.com/home/ada_answers/lookwho here] and [http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html here]. Railways, Bank, Aviation, '''Non'''-US Military. You have fallen for a [[Hoax]].
But then criticism sections have been discouraged on Wikipedia as such chapters only turn into [[Troll (Internet)|troll]] magnets. We leave it as it is. Of course, if you find any substantially wrong with Ada which is not a [[Hoax]] or [[Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt|FUD]] then let me know.
--[[User:Krischik|Krischik]] <sup>[[User_talk:Krischik|T]]</sup> 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||