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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!feeder.news-service.com!post.news-service.com!news1.surfino.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1462853.JgxLXPrZ7W@linux1.krischik.com> From: Martin Krischik Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Reply-To: martin@krischik.com Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:25:21 +0100 References: <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <87is4598pm.fsf@insalien.org> <1110054476.533590@athnrd02> <1110059861.560004@athnrd02> <422b6d49.1141887367@news.xs4all.nl> <1110266099.441421.179290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1110332933.587110.260410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110390097.532139.43430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <422f3808$0$30165$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> <1110409958.685759.249420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <15SdnYvJ0_x3Vq3fRVn-3Q@megapath.net> <1110522060.091940.178510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1110556346.841594.212520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <4952804.Myubg7stsI@linux1.krischik.com> Organization: None User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@surfino.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.169.175.19 (83.169.175.19) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:00:16 +0100 X-Trace: 1202542331210f60c0ab607056 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9238 comp.lang.c++:45301 comp.realtime:1370 comp.software-eng:4930 Date: 2005-03-12T16:25:21+01:00 List-Id: Peter Koch Larsen wrote: > I do not believe that to be the problem. There is a standard and there are > commercial libraries out there to test conformance. The problem rather > lies in other areas such as: > > - compiler vendors wanting to be backwards compatible. > - compiler vendors wanting to get a grip on their customers by ofering > "extensions" to the language. > - compiler vendors who don't care if their product is standards-compliant. How very true. >>> By 1990 or so when compilers conforming reasonably closely with the C >>> standard became available, it appears likely that essentially all new >>> development was being done in Ada. Under the circumstances, it would be >>> rather surprising if the C code was ever rewritten into standard C. >> >> On the last project I was working with a 3rd party library which had not >> a single "const" in its header files - probably to be compatible with old >> compilers. So a major "savety" feature of C89 was still missing in >> current code - and affected our current development - since I has to use >> that library. > > You could use another library out there. Cars are not bad just because one > manufacturer ships buggy cars out. It was a very special lib with only a very few alternatives out there. >> The most compatible C/C++ compiler AFAIK is digital mars >> (http://www.digitalmars.com) with "only" 4 C99 features missing: >> (http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/ctgLanguageImplementation.html#c_unimplemented). >> >> But even digital mars aims only at the C++98 and not the current C++ >> 2003. And there are still 4 features missing: >> (http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/ctgLanguageImplementation.html#cpp_unimplemented). > Did you have a look at Comeau C++? No. Got a link to have a look? >> Maybe just maybe - if there realy was any standart compiler available - >> but >> there isn't - the C/C++ compiler vendors are allways one release behind >> the >> actual ISO standart. > > If you look at C++ (i can't comment on C), all major vendors i know of > have a high level of compliance. For the '98 standart yes - but how about the '03 standard. As I said - one release behind. And they havn't got 100% compliance - as the Ada compiler vendors have. And they can indedd claim that - Ada has the ACATS test - pass the test you are 100% compliant - fail the thest and (almost) no customer will consider your offer. >>> By contrast, comparing modern C++ to the pre-standard C shows _large_ >>> improvements in nearly all areas. This is due in part to the changes in >>> the language itself, but perhaps even more so to improved understanding >>> of how to use the language. >> >> True - the former slim languages designed by individuals have become fad >> languages desined by the ISO commitie ;-). > This is simply not true. Shure it is true: The C++ ISO standard has ruffly 200 pages more then the Ada ISO standard. The C standard is a few pages shorter - but C hasn't got object orientation, concurency, real time and distributed system included. > The "ISO commitie" you refer to consists of > people using C++ in daily life. So are the Ada commitie memebers. Still Ada was/is bashed for beeing a commitie language and C++ isn't. >> It is true that a programming language need some minimum features set to >> be >> usefull. And that feature set is a lot larger then most belive. If a >> successfull language does not provide that set it will be bolted on >> later. If anything the current C/C++ ISO standards clearly show that the >> advocates >> for slim languages hat been wrong all along. > > I have to disagree again. C/C++ has been most succesfull as a language if > you measure that by the number of applications written in that language. Shure C/C++ are successfull I never said any different - I just pointed out that C/C++ are not slim and lightweight languages any more. They have become fat over time. Only the fat does not show - because theree so many implit features which only show when you read the ISO standart itself. And since the very successfull C/C++ have become as big as they are I rightfully claim the the advocates for slim languages hat been wrong all along. But prove me wrong and show me any successful slim language - which has not become fat (either by language or by build in library) withing 10 years of becomming successfull. Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com