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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <7961a91c-a5af-40e2-bbc0-6bf69a98176d@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<gnc585975lmscgmvat9avedckgs3du6pin@4ax.com>
 <362f621e-a01c-4772-ba02-4e18e9962188@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
	<b6t5855cc2epg9h3s1qb9ulm96bp3pfphk@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.173.42
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250097697 14181 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2009 17:21:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:21:37 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.91.173.42;
	posting-account=GwkXCgoAAABFSG45Q--uHVZG6zn6ec-e
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.0.11)
	Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7703
Date: 2009-08-12T10:21:36-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Aug 12, 12:59=A0pm, John McCabe <j...@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT), REH <spamj...@stny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> It seems to me that Ada's model started off with a clean slate and was
> >> designed from the ground up whereas with C++ it's always been a case
> >> of "how can we bolt this on". That's primarily what I was getting at.
> >If the Ada model suits your needs, use it. Why should C++ be
> >identical? It serves a different community.
>
> In what way?

There is less concern with (compiler-provided) safety, and more with
speed. The C++ philosophy is "if you don't need it, you don't pay for
it." For example, you don't take a (potential) performance hit for
exceptions or range-checking, unless you explicitly use them. The C++
committee would rather (I surmise) define an interface that maps
easily to existing systems as a light wrapper, than one that is harder
to implement but much safer. I don't think one way is better than the
other. It depends on your needs. I use both languages extensive where
I work.

REH