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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c043:: with SMTP id q64-v6mr2475677iof.27.1530113685665; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:f483:: with SMTP id s125-v6mr674676oih.7.1530113685402; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!u78-v6no1892789itb.0!news-out.google.com!z3-v6ni1380iti.0!nntp.google.com!d7-v6no1912632itj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <25267926-202c-4ae3-821a-097c1c27697a@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.195.62; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.195.62 References: <584564c2-9f64-4965-b045-535cdaf899c0@googlegroups.com> <7cb22c58-3009-47f0-8fe7-62f3cd61785d@googlegroups.com> <1879145989.551211041.811077.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <06e9a2de-7d05-41ce-a459-c39855d429fd@googlegroups.com> <25267926-202c-4ae3-821a-097c1c27697a@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1e96b53e-b66c-49da-9c9d-5e99dbd2b505@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Why are Ada compilers difficult to write ? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:34:45 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53378 Date: 2018-06-27T08:34:45-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 9:19:22 AM UTC-5, Olivier Henley wrote: > > Ummmm, apparently you are stuck in 1992 or something. C++=C2=A0ain't y= our father's Oldsmobile anymore, > > to paraphrase the old television commercials. Time marched onward in C= ++, as shown in the timeline > > at the URL=C2=A0below. Threads-of-execution, sequence points, thread-l= ocal storage, condition variables, > > multireader-uniwriter locks, threadsafe STL, atomic smart pointers, fut= ures, latches &=C2=A0barriers, > > coroutines, transactional memory, task blocks (i.e., rendezvous), plus = inheriting C99's and C11's work > > on multithreading and lack-of-aliasing. >=20 > Ummmm, apparently you are stuck in 2021 or something. C++ is your father'= s Oldsmobile that was > selected for a 'Pimp My Ride' episode. >=20 > From http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html >=20 > - transactional memory : No > - task blocks are not even mentioned (N4411) >=20 > From https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html >=20 > - coroutines : No > - task blocks are not even mentioned (N4411) > what else ... not more time to loose on that. >=20 > Do you really want me to check for Visual Studio 15/17 support for the fe= atures you mentioned? C++ is the standardization effort's output specification-documents, especia= lly those proposals which have been accepted or are clearly on-track to bei= ng accepted. C++ is not some lagging snapshot of some particular compiler = release. If the undulating mass compiler feature-content is your definitio= n of a programming language, then that programming language changes every d= ay; job postings would need to call out specific release numbers of specifi= c brands of compiler instead of merely saying Ada95 or Ada2012 or C++11 or = C++17. Btw, OpenWatcom is really lagging behind, but OpenWatcom is under active de= velopment. Do we say that C++ lacks a feature until OpenWatcom catches up?= Likewise, do we say that Ada lacks a feature until every single one of it= s still-actively-maintained Ada compilers has the feature? For example, clearly, C++98 is =E2=80=A6 void LookMaNoHands() try { ; // Your code here. } catch( ... ) { ; // Your code here. } =E2=80=A6 even though no compiler on the planet ever implemented that stand= ardized feature of elision of the function's outermost braces, replacing th= em with an outermost try-catch block. Under your flawed logic, C++98 doesn= 't exist due to all compilers on the planet lacking that one feature. And = then as soon as one or all of them were to implement that old (now-deprecat= ed) feature, poof suddenly out of the nebulous ether C++98 comes into exist= ence =E2=89=A520 years later.