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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e28ffe0eaf31d1b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "James B. White, III (Trey)" Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ (vs Lisp) Date: 1997/09/08 Message-ID: <341404B4.13CB@osc.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270709400 References: <34090462.4652@easystreet.com> <340C47F8.670B@osc.edu> <5v0lba$jnv$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: Ohio Supercomputer Center Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > > "James B. White, III (Trey)" writes: > >Ada may have advantages over C++, but only C++ allows these incredibly > >powerful programming techniques. > > False. Lisp people know this kind of meta-programming as a very old > technique indeed. Let me clarify my statement. The combination of expression templates *and* operator overloading *and* function inlining *and* efficient compilers allows the creation of elegant interfaces that result in code that rivals optimized hand-coded FORTRAN in performance. As far as I know, this is true only of C++. If it is true of Lisp or anything else (like Ada), I'd like to know! -- James B. White, III (Trey) Ohio Supercomputer Center trey@osc.edu Phone: (614)292-9291 Fax: (614)292-7168