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: 103376,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jeff Carter <carter@spam.innocon.com>
Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada?
Date: 1997/05/20
Message-ID: <3381ACB1.CE6@spam.innocon.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 242593646
References: <3380F4A5.1EBB@sprintmail.com>
 <0E728DD68EEA6459.E73D6B137241803C.A98B157CBA88E8F3@library-proxy.airnews.net>
Organization: Wouldn't You Like to Know, Inc.
Reply-To: carter@spam.innocon.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Kevin Cline wrote:
...
> That's exactly what I was expecting.  This thread has gotten away from the
> post I originally replied to.  That post essentially said that Ada's arrays
> were vastly superior to C arrays because in Ada one could write a function
> that would read a line count, then declare an array of strings of that size,
> read the lines into the array, and then return that array.  All I wanted to do
> was point out that:
...

That's not quite correct, as I posted the example. I was replying to a
request (possibly from you) for an example in which explicit
allocation/deallocation was required in C (not C++) and not required in
Ada. I provided such an example. It happened to use arrays, but did not
make any claims about C arrays vs. Ada arrays. I did not claim that it
was a realistic example; in fact it was unrealistic, but I chose it as
easy to understand.

In real life, I frequently use nested scopes in Ada to create
dynamically sized objects without explicit allocation/deallocation.
-- 
Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
Auntie-spam reply to; try ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail