Re: Mixing Ada and C++. Is a good idea?

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <dewar.880074788@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> Joe Gwinn says
> 
> <<That's what all language folk say, for all languages.
> 
> Details aside, simpler is usually better, for all languages.  I don't
> doubt that some probelms have been solved, but the history of
> inter-language bindings isn't exactly smooth.  Pardon me if I don't
> believe that Ada95 is any different in this.
> 
> Joe Gwinn
>>>
> 
> 
> No, that's plain wrong. I can only guess it comes from a lack of familiarity
> with Ada 95. In fact Ada 95 is quite different from other languages in this
> respect, I have no idea what silly things people do or do not say about
> languages, but Ada 95 is quite unique among standardized languages in 
> paying considerable attention to providing high level language features
> at an appropriate level of abstraction for interfacing to C, Fortran,
> and COBOL in the standard.

Although that feature of Ada 95 may be helpful, it is a shame it is
required, rather than having compilers for all languages interface
with each other automatically on a given platform.  That does require
that devotees of all languages agree that there might be a place for
other languages in the world, and so far even Ada does not have that
attribute across all its fans.

Larry Kilgallen