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: Terry Devine Subject: Re: Standardized OO Language Date: 1998/02/17 Message-ID: <34E9C429.3988@mitre.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325917428 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net> <34E37336.379297D1@cl.cam.ac.uk> To: tdevine@mitre.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: MITRE Corp. Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: tdevine@mitre.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 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: