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: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
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>
 <128d63da-361f-4e33-be5e-e06bdc71e39f@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 	<wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <6d23274b-d649-4a83-a6f1-6d1e9c4c3998@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 	<h5vq9u$i0g$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <df70d2ce-e773-4ba8-b800-a50fec63a6fc@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <4A83D107.2020407@obry.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:57:47 +0200
Message-ID: <196q25f7ntf6a$.tj10ulon3mmt.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2009 10:57:47 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7dc9de46.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=CN02bROe?MdeoCI^f\Y]Ea4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbiD8^TQW:c8;iDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dLK[5LiR>kgbK8OT>TFLi9d
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7715
Date: 2009-08-13T10:57:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:38:31 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:

> Le 13/08/2009 04:08, REH a �crit :
>> I use and like both. Ada has an emphasis on safety, C++ on speed.
> 
> Agreed. I like to think that Ada is 3 months behind in term of speed as 
> computer are making progress regularly. It is so much safer that I just 
> stick to Ada even when speed is the first requirement (my time cost lot 
> more than a computer, I don't want to loose it in debug party).

Don't you wonder why should it be this way? Shouldn't safer code be more
efficient?

I prefer to think that Ada has an emphasis on *semantics*, which, when
properly defined allows a deeper optimization and safer programming.

The major problem of C++ is not its awful syntax. It is that a "normal"
programmer reading and writing C++ code does not really understand what
this code does. It is like X'Access attribute in Ada, you newer know what
surprises accessibility checks will give. You have some little "theory" of
what it could be, but this theory is customary wrong, and you have neither
time nor desire to verify it. In C++ most of such pet "theories" are wrong.
Ada is designed to be more friendly...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de