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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <331f6088-bad4-4340-a7f3-a942332edd18@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@googlegroups.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.252.20
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297898596 4512 127.0.0.1 (16 Feb 2011 23:23:16
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:23:16 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <ijhlc0$qck$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=204.253.252.20;
 posting-account=NhXkHQoAAADUfNLRQrjReWdGEn5uz9E_
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18286
Date: 2011-02-16T15:23:16-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/16/2011 6:07 PM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> The huge difference is that you are not required to use #include in C or
> C++. If you want to declare your own prototypes with totally different
> types, the compiler will happily let you do it.

Since C++ supports function overloading, declaring a function
with a different prototype declares a different function. If
that function does not exist, the program will fail to build.
(Return types not always included, unfortunately.)

> "but everybody does use #include!". Sure. But when it comes to safety
> critical software, "everybody does it" is not enough. You need guarantees.

Most programmers don't work on safety-critical software, and most
programmers don't indulge in pathologically weird constructs just
for the sake of introducing odd errors into their code. And you
yourself pointed out that (whole) Ada is unsuitable for safety-critical
software!