@Lou

Quote:

I took an ADA class in college around 91-92.... It seemed exactly as I described...and it was object-based, not fully object oriented.

What do you mean by "object-based"? Ada 83 had something called derived types, but that's a method to build subtypes, not to facilitate object-oriented program with inheritance and the like.

Quote:

Was also favored by the US military from what I was told at the time.

That's correct. The name was trademarked IIRC, and every Ada compiler had to pass a comprehensive series of tests (ACATS). (They still do.) The DoD required Ada to be used in all new contracts.

This being America, companies were pretty resistant to do what someone else required, regardless of how sensible it was (see for instance the paper "Ada outperforms assembly") and waivers were routinely issued (the paper mentions this) to the point that DoD eventually gave up on that requirement in the mid-90s when they shifted to COTS. It didn't help that the first Ada compilers weren't all that great, so that by the 90s Ada was seen as "too complicated." The first C++ compilers had a pretty bad reputation, too, but C++ has long been more complicated & IMHO only recently caught up to some of Ada's biggest features, such as a standard for tasking / threading in C++11, a machine model for said standard in the same, and only in C++20 did they add true modularity (I think; I haven't actually read up on that yet but I know it was planned).

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.