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,cb4b02eafef9cefb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Mize <smize@link.com>
Subject: Re: Difference between ADA and c++
Date: 1997/08/28
Message-ID: <3405A1D2.7D56@link.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 268751129
References: <33FDD17A.320B@virgin.net> <01bcafdf$50784b80$7774d8cc@fatman>
 <5to0ts$n9j@drn.zippo.com> <dewar.872431657@merv> <340262F6.32D3@mcs.com>
Reply-To: smize@link.com
Organization: Hughes Training Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mike Young wrote:
> I offer the following without necessarily endorsing or agreeing
 with the
> preceding pro-C++ comments. ANSI standardization can be considered a
> significant event for C++.

A couple of folks have responded by pointing out that C++ is
as yet has no ANSI standard.  I think Mr. Young was referring
to the currently-ongoing PROCESS of ANSI standardization, in
the light of which his following comments are sensible:

> If nothing else, language support is much
> improved in many compilers [not a laughing matter], and there are now
> common libraries for defining and manipulating ADT's. The days of
> balancing Microsoft/Borland/gcc/RogueWave library features promise to
> disappear someday.

(Of course, these ARE laughing matters for Ada developers.)

Sam Mize