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,e93f73587e2bc1c3 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.105.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Sharing generic bodies across instantiations. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <4c4e2d69$0$2378$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <4c4f5c28$0$2375$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <7da1e21f-bec7-4607-923c-0fd6cbcfc753@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <1vjqnwxhvr91j.3e8ryvkk8ezv$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:16:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1e77bsd66fduw.dbrgbk4g2ce7$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2010 15:16:21 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 1a973b39.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC==j5KN\Ki\MH@k=MdN::NBIic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgBXeEk@>I_9LH[6LHn;2LCVN7enW;^6ZC`D\`mfM[68DCCP?D2\B5hCnO X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12631 Date: 2010-07-28T15:16:21+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak wrote: > On 28 Lip, 11:28, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" > wrote: > >>>> That is, the nature of C++ essentially requires a >>>> replication strategy. >> >>> Why? What part of that "nature" requires it? >> >> Macro's nature > > Wrong. Macros have nothing to do with templates. They have the nature of source level uncontrolled and untyped substitution and reinterpretation. >>> But, for the sake of exercise, think about a C++ *interpreter*. >> >> Interpreter is an obvious non-starter in this context. Generics are >> considered compilable. > > Paragraph, please. > >> (There is no crisp line between compiled and >> interpreted) > > That's the point. Nope. The difference still exists, even if not qualitative. It can be measured in terms of performance, usability, complexity, security etc. > A C++ or Ada interpreter can be fully standard-compliant, which makes > it a very valid "starter" in this context. Interpreter does not qualify as a compiler, per definition of both. You might say that apple is as edible as orange, but that would not make it orange in the context of the greengrocery. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de