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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e11aa5522d5cc28 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Mixing Ada and C++. Is a good idea? Date: 1997/11/21 Message-ID: <1997Nov21.064154.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 291210081 References: Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org X-Trace: news.decus.org 880112517 12222 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2] Organization: LJK Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-11-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > > Joe Gwinn says > > < > 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