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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,53c7a24d13241b98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Markus Kuhn Subject: Re: Standardized OO Language Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <34E37336.379297D1@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324559224 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Daniel wrote: > After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work, he is an > Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I > said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has > an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years. > > I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong. You were correct. Today, there exists neither an ISO nor an ANSI standard for C++. Ada95 has been standardized as ISO/IEC 8652:1995 for many years now. Check the ISO database on and the ANSI database on yourself! All there exists is some advanced draft of a C++ standard. Anyway, C++ has pointer arithmetic, therefore no object protections, and therefore I think it is not unfair to classify C++ more as a luxurious OO-Assembler than as a high-level programming language. If you look for a practical high-level OO programming language, check out either Ada95 or Java. Both are pretty decent state-of-the art Algol successors. Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: