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,df1a7f1c3c3bc77e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An Ada Advice Inquiry Date: 7 May 2007 14:26:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1178573171.037577.54370@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> References: <1178448459.256329.28590@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178480316.415370.194260@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <463ed042$1@news.post.ch> <1178527820.949652.143060@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1g1r9ddu19ka7$.1kq3tc2btm98o.dlg@40tude.net> <1178542830.662912.295270@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <2825529.4NRNKvsDf2@linux1.krischik.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.3.122.117 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1178573172 25362 127.0.0.1 (7 May 2007 21:26:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:26:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <2825529.4NRNKvsDf2@linux1.krischik.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.3.122.117; posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15622 Date: 2007-05-07T14:26:11-07:00 List-Id: On 7 Maj, 18:12, Martin Krischik wrote: > > The difference between Ada and C++ is that with C++ we have a set of > > compilers to choose from, so nobody is forcing you to use the worst > > one (unless you got locked-in, but then it's only your fault). > > With Ada there is a set of versions of GNAT that are "somewhere" > > between Ada95 and Ada2005, where the exact meaning of "somewhere" is > > to be discovered by the user. > > That's unfair. I know - but it's part of my point that your criticism of C++ is mostly based on outdated experiences. It is true that C++ compiler vendors were sloppy with implementing the standard, but it is now clear that the main players are interested in compliance much more than ever. The community was putting enough demand and there were some modern libraries popping up that vendors just couldn't have pretend any longer that they can compete by providing crippled tools. For some time it made sense, especially when you got some "framework" or other crap with the compiler and used it as a combined environment. For example, as long as you used MFC with MSVC++ or equivalent Borland pair, nobody cared about standard conformance, because the environment was conforming to itself - but with the proliferation of new third- party libraries it could not last any longer. > The > new Ada standart is only 2 month old. Sure. Then - let's see how the situation will look like 2 months after stamping the next C++ standard, OK? Hint: many of the yet-to-be-standardized features are already in experimental versions of g++. I'm ready to bet that this time the transitional phase for C++ vendors will be *very* short. This is because of different forces that now shape the C++ landscape. > And still AFAIK there is still only > one C++ compiler to support "export". We've been through this already. Short version: nobody uses "export" so nobody cares whether it's supported or not. It looks that this subject is occupying the C++ enemies much more than the actual users of the language. Interesting, isn't it? -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/