* Standadised OO Language @ 1998-02-12 0:00 Matthew Daniel 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Matthew Daniel @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. Thanks Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> writes: > 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. Neither. C++ definitely has _NOT_ had _any_ standard 6months ago let alone 2 years ago. The guy is a clueless fool. I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted. I don't know if this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO. OTOH, Common Lisp/CLOS was (AFAIK) the first true standardized OO language (1994 as opposed to Ada's 1995), though it was ANSI and not ISO. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1998-02-13 0:00 ` William Clodius 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Howard W. LUDWIG @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony wrote: > > Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> writes: > > > 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. > > Neither. > > C++ definitely has _NOT_ had _any_ standard 6months ago let alone 2 > years ago. The guy is a clueless fool. > > I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe > December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was > laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted. I don't know if > this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO. > > OTOH, Common Lisp/CLOS was (AFAIK) the first true standardized OO > language (1994 as opposed to Ada's 1995), though it was ANSI and not > ISO. > > -- > Jon Anthony Perhaps some specific dates and details would help: CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) 1994-12-08 ANSI X3.226:1994 ---------- has not become an ISO standard ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any details, other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset of CLOS!!!) 1997-??-?? ISO 13816:1997 ---------- has not become an ANSI standard [Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few languages for which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist but they never have matched nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.] Ada 1994-11-01 Final ISO draft approved 1995-02-15 ISO/IEC 8652:1995 publication 1995-04-10 ANSI approval for ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995 [Thus, the dates show that CLOS became an ANSI standard after approval of final ISO draft for Ada but before ISO publication. Generally, CLOS is given credit for being first overall, but Ada beat it (and all other OO languages) to ISO approval.] C++ 1997-11-14 Final ISO _Draft_ International Standard DIS 14882 approved unanimously 1998-early Final (hopefully) balloting on final draft 1998-late ISO publication expected ANSI assumedly will follow. [It should be noted that earlier votes on C++ were contentious. Minimum (but with significant impact for compilers) acceptable fixes were made, resulting in a unanimous approval of the final Committee Draft, with several country representatives holding their nose with the attitude that the final version had significant problems but was better than continuing the state of _no_ standard. Based on this, it seems very likely that the remaining steps of ISO standardization will be formalities and, assumedly, ANSI will follow. Compilers will take a while to catch up to the standard and mature, just as they did for Ada.] Regarding the original issue, apparently a debate over whether C++ is at the same level of standardization and maturity as Ada 95: Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after two more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO standard. Mature compilers from several vendors for several [understatement] platforms are available in a _validated_ form. The validation process for Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time of relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95. GNAT, which runs on a wide variety of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes) language and passes _all_ relevant validation tests. C++, on the other hand, is going through its first rigorous standardization process. It has achieved only Final _Draft_ International Standard phase, not final approval and publication. Compiler vendors are scrambling to incorporate the new features that have been added or changed over the last two to three years. We can expect it will be 2000 before complete, compliant compilers are available with any degree of maturity (allowing the same two-year interval from completion of settling on a standard to compiler compliance which was the case for Ada and is typical for other languages as well). There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance of compilers to the standard (like Ada validation). Since it is expected that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting the C++ standard!?#! Wow! What does it mean to have an ISO C++ standard document, then? So much for compilers stabilizing and maturing in 2000, and so long portability! What a deal! Lots of suckers thinking so and grabbing it. Howard W. LUDWIG Working, but not speaking, for Lockheed Martin Electronics & Missiles Co. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Howard W. LUDWIG wrote: > Perhaps some specific dates and details would help: > > CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) > 1994-12-08 ANSI X3.226:1994 > ---------- has not become an ISO standard To be precise (this is the Ada newsgroup after all :-), one should say "Common Lisp", not CLOS, as CLOS is just an object system sitting on top of the objectless ANSI CL subset. > ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any > details, > other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset > of CLOS!!!) > 1997-??-?? ISO 13816:1997 > ---------- has not become an ANSI standard Never finished, supposedly based on EuLisp, a nice clean Lisp which never went anywhere. Its a sort of reaction to the fact that Common Lisp was originally an all-American, or rather all-USA grass roots effort to synthesize a Lisp out of the extant US Lisps. EuLisp was a brand new design somewhere between Scheme and Common Lisp in the design space. Some of the story is in the HOPL-II proceedings. > [Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few > languages for > which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist but they never > have matched > nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.] Last time I looked ISO Lisp wasn't finished, so I'm not sure if this is true. I'll look at the ISO web page when I have a web connection. > > Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after > two > more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO > standard. Mature compilers from several vendors for several > [understatement] > platforms are available in a _validated_ form. The validation process > for > Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time > of > relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95. GNAT, which runs on a wide > variety > of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes) > language > and passes _all_ relevant validation tests. > There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance of compilers to the > standard (like Ada validation). This is a big plus for Ada, much more important IMO than whether an ANSI or ISO standard exists. > Since it is expected > that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and > C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole > other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already > talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ > compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting > the C++ standard!?#! Excellent point, which I hadn't really thought of. Of course, it may also entail some slight modification to Annex B of Ada 95. As Robert Dewar pointed out, none of this is likely to sway anyone who has already decided that they "hate" language X, where X is Ada, C++, Lisp, or whatever. I know I prefer Ada over C++, but C++ has some nice ideas too. -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` William Clodius 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: William Clodius @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony wrote: > <snip> > > I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe > December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was > laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted. I don't know if > this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO. > <snip> I sometimes follow the comp.std.c++ newsgroup. On jointly developed standards ANSI approval is usually conditional on ISO approval. The standardization committees late last year submitted a draft for the final stages of the ISO approval process. The submission was approved unaminously, and, because the ISO members usually rely on their representatives on the low level committees for their opinions on the draft, unaminous approval probably indicates that the final stage will not be controversial. However, even if it is not controversial, it can be time consuming (I believe that the ISO mislaid the original C++ paperwork delaying things by a couple of months, and ISO approval is often conditional on some minor changes), so that it will likely be late this year when it is officially published. -- William B. Clodius Phone: (505)-665-9370 Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NIS-2 FAX: (505)-667-3815 PO Box 1663, MS-C323 Group office: (505)-667-5776 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Email: wclodius@lanl.gov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG 1998-02-13 0:00 ` William Clodius @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Kenneth W. Sodemann @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony wrote in message ... > >I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe >December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was >laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted. I don't know if >this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO. > According to my reading of the "C/C++ Users Journal", it is an ANSI and ISO standard, and the final draft was accepted in early November of 1997. Barring any major problems, we now _finally_ have a C++ standard (insert big cheer here!). Of course, the lack of a standard hasn't been that big of a deal for me WRT C++, since for the C++ related work I have done, the only VALID standard has been "whatever MS does"! :) Of course for those using C++ on non-MS platforms, that is not true (most of my non-Windows work has been done in Ada, so the lack of a standard hasn't been an issue for me there either). -- Ken Sodemann stufflehead@bigfoot.com http://www.pcii.net/~stuffel Go 23, 24, 36, & ABE. Go Pack!! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 1998-02-12 0:00 ` David Weller 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Mark Bennison ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kenneth W. Sodemann @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>... >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 are wrong, and so is your friend. C++ does have an ANSI standard, however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal"). I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I work with are Ada and C++. -- Ken Sodemann stufflehead@bigfoot.com http://www.pcii.net/~stuffel Go 23, 24, 36, & ABE. Go Pack!! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` David Weller 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: David Weller @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <6bur94$k8n$1@news3.alpha.net>, Kenneth W. Sodemann <stufflehead@bigfoot.com> wrote: >Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>... >>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. >> >You are wrong, and so is your friend. C++ does have an ANSI standard, >however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first >announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal"). > >I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were >not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I >work with are Ada and C++. > Get ready to be surprised. :-) The first problem is, whose standard? ANSI standards are (comparatively) easier to get than an ISO standard. Ada95 is an ISO standard and has been for the last three years. Smalltalk is in the process of ANSI standardization, but it's a LONG way from approval. C++ is now in the final stages of getting ISO standardization, but it will most likely be December before it becomes published, maybe 1999. I remember laughing when C++ people were saying it'd be standardized by 1994. :-) Anyway, at this exact moment, the number of ISO standardized OO languages is one: Ada95. That will change, perhaps by this year. ANSI standardization, it should be noted, has little meaning outside the United States (and usually has little meaning within the US also :-) -- ****** NEW!! DoD Ada Hotline Number: 1-800-PARIAH ****** Tired of "junk" e-mail? Write to your congressman and tell them you support H.R. 1748, "The Netizens Protection Act of 1997". Make those SPAM-roaches run! http://www.cauce.org TAKE BACK THE INTERNET! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` David Weller @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 12 Feb 1998, David Weller wrote: > In article <6bur94$k8n$1@news3.alpha.net>, > Kenneth W. Sodemann <stufflehead@bigfoot.com> wrote: > >Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>... > >>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. > >> > >You are wrong, and so is your friend. C++ does have an ANSI standard, > >however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first > >announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal"). > > > >I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were > >not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I > >work with are Ada and C++. > > > > Get ready to be surprised. :-) As should you. Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, and that includes CLOS, arguably the most "powerful" object system out there in a standard language. If it didn't beat Ada to the "standard OO language" finish line, it was close. You're right about C++ though, the Draft ISO standard was only very recently ratified. > I remember laughing when C++ people were saying it'd be standardized > by 1994. :-) Do I detect a little schadenfreude there David? :-) -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Brian said <<As should you. Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, and that includes CLOS, arguably the most "powerful" object system out there in a standard language. If it didn't beat Ada to the "standard OO language" finish line, it was close. >> Normally what we have said is that Ada 95 is the only internationally standardized object oriented language (what ever that means :-) That has been true for a while, with no close competitors. When the ISO C++ standard is finally approved (as noted previously, this has not happened yet), then we will change our tune to "Ada was the first internationally standardized OO language." However, I fear me all these facts won't do the original poster much good, people who hate languages without knowing much about them (the most typical case) are unlikely to be swayed by something so prosaic as mere facts! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Mark Bennison 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Standadised " Dennis Reimer 4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark Bennison @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> thought long and hard and 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. Maybe he meant a draft ANSI standard. There's been one of them around for a while. I believe that this C++ standard has recently been ratified, but I don't have too many details. I'm sure some other kind soul can enlighten you further. Mark. -- Mark Bennison MBCS, +-----------------------------------+ Technical Consultant, | All opinions expressed are my own | EASAMS Software Systems. +-----------------------------------+ "Death is a fickle hen, and random are her eggs" - Armando Iannucci ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standardized OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Mark Bennison @ 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Markus Kuhn 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 more replies) 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Standadised " Dennis Reimer 4 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Markus Kuhn @ 1998-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> 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: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standardized OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Terry Devine 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Markus Kuhn wrote: > > Check the ISO database on <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the > ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself! > Thank you for posting an authoritative source, rather than simply passing on rumors! These sites will definitly go on my bookmark list. -- - Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standardized OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Stephen Leake @ 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Terry Devine 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1998-02-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: > ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself! From the database: ANSI X3.226-1994 : Information Technology - Programming Language - Common Lisp ^ Note------------+ /Jon -- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standardized OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Terry Devine 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Terry Devine @ 1998-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tdevine Markus Kuhn wrote: > > 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 <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the > ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> 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: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Standadised OO Language 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn @ 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Dennis Reimer 4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Dennis Reimer @ 1998-02-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. > > Thanks > > Matt ANSI C has been around for a while but I believe ANSI C++ was ratified only recently (about 3 months ago.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-02-17 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-02-12 0:00 Standadised OO Language Matthew Daniel 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Howard W. LUDWIG 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1998-02-13 0:00 ` William Clodius 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann 1998-02-12 0:00 ` David Weller 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Mark Bennison 1998-02-12 0:00 ` Standardized " Markus Kuhn 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1998-02-13 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1998-02-17 0:00 ` Terry Devine 1998-02-15 0:00 ` Standadised " Dennis Reimer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox