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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 12:34:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: mjsilva697@earthlink.net (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: 18 Jun 2002 12:34:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <27085883.0206181134.1cab9e4d@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.245.217.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024428856 10644 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2002 19:34:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2002 19:34:16 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26291 Date: 2002-06-18T19:34:16+00:00 List-Id: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:... > The main objection is usually that Ada programmers are too hard to > find. More recently, a top expert (a gcc maintainer) is claiming that > the STL overcomes many of the objections to C++. I wonder which objections the STL overcomes? Hyman Rosen, care to help out here? Doesn't the STL require dynamic allocation (not good for ATC)? I could be wrong, but it seems the STL only answers a couple of objections, not "many". And, of course, it's voluntary, in the sense that one can still use the dangerous but legal alternatives and get a clean compile. Mike