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: 103376,59d666bca086a225
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada & MacOS
Date: 6 Feb 2006 12:44:26 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1139258666.225238.289220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <drsoc8$1nib$1@node1.news.atman.pl>
   <1776691.hMkAr8ZQHy@linux1.krischik.com>
   <drtn2k$264k$1@node1.news.atman.pl>
   <6SuEf.155126$dP1.513381@newsc.telia.net>
   <dru3u7$2fhj$1@node1.news.atman.pl>
   <1289921.BRApYLEfLn@linux1.krischik.com>
   <ds70ss$onv$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <gSMFf.5573$5E3.3893@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.249.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139258671 5137 127.0.0.1 (6 Feb 2006 20:44:31
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:44:31 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.249.72;
   posting-account=lJDDWg0AAACmMd7wLM4osx8JUCDw_C_j
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2802
Date: 2006-02-06T12:44:26-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Using which compilers and what language features? Very few "C++" compilers
> implement the language defined by the ISO standard. Can you use all the features
> of the standard language and count on it compiling with all "C++" compilers?

Much more so now than in the past. The biggest missing feature is
implementation of the "export" keyword, and that's more due to
deliberate foot-dragging than anything else, by vendors who loathe
the feature. There are also legacy features that remain in some
implementations that would not be there in a completely conforming
compiler. But you now have to be quite expert in C++ to find the
missing features in modern compilers.

> Ada compilers can implement compiler-dependent pragmas and attributes, and can
> supply compiler-dependent packages. Many also supply platform-dependent
> packages. If you use those, you're not writing portable code. If you stick to
> the standard language, though, portability is pretty much guaranteed.

What about all the standard annexes which vendors may choose not to
implement? If I write a standard-conforming distributed program in Ada,
is portability pretty much guaranteed?