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: 103376,54c513170bafd693
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net>
Subject: Re: Desirability of C++
Date: 2000/05/01
Message-ID: <390D1C01.D959A7E2@netwood.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617757611
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <01HW.B4BFC2820005B06B08A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <20000204073443.24976.00001288@ng-ci1.aol.com>
   <87euk0$c93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002040920070.2217-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
   <01HW.B4C1346100072D2408A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <949867976.281549@the-rowan.albatross.co.nz>
   <8766v93w66.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
 <F721B334E5BE49E3.6D9E1F7A7C81C3CE.9B64FD843F046A46@lp.airnews.net>
   <sc336dpgee6168@corp.supernews.com> <38E8C81A.AA62CF4C@HiWAAY.net>
   <hoffman-ya02408000R1204002048410001@news.insync.net>
 <7EA1B852F5D4D8C6.26EEE9181C80F0DF.0161EA2D9C353253@lp.airnews.net>
   <01HW.B51C1B6E00F41C2D04BB51B0@news.pacbell.net>
 <38F796B2.A99A206A@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>   <38F7A27A.4F7729FA@raytheon.com>
 <8eclae$afj$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
 <4F706057FEE2A550.BF5FE19AE279EFCD.A55706B3F9D07043@lp.airnews.net>
 <8eiv08$820$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <390D001C.7433140B@netwood.net>
 <yecln1ulsy9.fsf@king.cts.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Keith Thompson wrote:

> I don't believe C++ can be made significantly more robust
> without breaking backward compatibility,
> either with the current version of C++ or with C.
> (C++'s near backward compatibility with C
>  is one of its biggest selling points.)
> It would be possible to add new features
> that make it easier to write safe code,
> but any change that breaks existing (unsafe) code
> would be politically impossible.
>
> It would be possible to create a new language
> with Ada's robustness that looks more like C and/or C++.
> (Java might be a step in that direction,
>  but I don't know it well enough to judge that.)

I think that the next evolutionary step for C++
will break backward compatibility.
The new C9X (C99?) standard is incompatible with C++
so there is already incentive for C and C++ to diverge.
I don't think that Java is a good model
for a more robust C++ (Ada++?).
Garbage collection is incompatible
with real time programming.