Re: bitwise comparators

[Alexander Van Hecke <alexke@hotmail.com>]

This seems like an attack on C/C++!  I'm sorry, but I have to react on this

> Ada has
> packages,

C was ment to be used modular and for reuse : put your code in separate .c
and .h files.

> private types,

C has that!

> exceptions,

you can program exceptions in C.  I never said that C has all these things,
but you can program them, and there are masses of libraries available that
have just what you need.

> generics,

use structs and callback functions and you have perfect generic types!

> tasks,

threads


true enumeration types, true arrays,
enumeration types in Ada are no different than they are in C.  Just because
you have some fancy attributes (SUCC, PRED) doesn't mean that they are
different or more powerful!  You can write functions that do exactly the
same, even more, these functions have already been written numerous times
and are available.
With true arrays, do you mean out of bound checking, etc?  This can be done
with _proper_ programming in C!

none of which are found in C.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ahum.

> C just has integers, floating-point numbers, pointers, and functions, so
> of course Ada takes
> longer to learn.
>
> Ada makes creating and using abstractions easier than C (packages for
> encapsulation and information hiding; private types for information
> hiding).

Would you agree that C++ is just as good in that as Ada.  Don't forget that
ANY C++ code can be easily translated into C?
For that matter, everything else you mentioned (namespace control, (easy)
generics, exceptions and exception handlers, typing) is easily achieved in
C++ (and thus C).

As I have said already a few times, and as I said in my original post : I
THINK IT'S A NICE FEATURE OF ADA THAT YOU CAN WRITE READABLE CODE, BUT THAT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE LANGUAGE IS MORE POWERFUL!  It might be
easier to use once you've mastered it, but it also is harder to learn.

excuse me for being so impolite, but I had to get this off my chest.

alex