Revision as of 11:39, 7 April 2009 edit Krischik (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,637 edits →reads as an ad: Nope - just mentioning the good things. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:40, 7 April 2009 edit undo Krischik (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,637 edits m →maybe because there noting wrong worth mentioning: layout Next edit →
Line 368: ; 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.

Talk:Ada (programming language): Difference between revisions