From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <0ce3d846-c452-4e35-8a5d-f44713a5085d@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5c105a$0$32660$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <wcczkpvojrk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.252.20
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297888352 8592 127.0.0.1 (16 Feb 2011 20:32:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.252.20;
 posting-account=NhXkHQoAAADUfNLRQrjReWdGEn5uz9E_
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13)
 Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17311
Date: 2011-02-16T12:32:32-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 16, 2:35=A0pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes:
> > A second problem is that C++ leaves the order of evaluation of
> > subexpressions in an expression undefined, unlike Java.
>
> Ada shares this flaw with C++.
>
> The reason is to allow the compiler to choose the most efficient order.
> But I think it's possible to design a language that gets the best
> of both worlds (allow that sort of efficiency, without the portability
> problems).

I think this reason is misguided. Most expressions do not depend on
their
order of evaluation, so even if the language specified the order the
compiler
could still rearrange things as it wished. It is for those few others
where
consistency rather than efficiency is most important, else programs
stand
the risk of working "accidentally" and then failing mysteriously due
to a
change in environment.