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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a59300e1cca1082c,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-18 12:47:45 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Safe C++
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:45:33 -0700
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3BA7A45D.186EE27A@adaworks.com>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cc.b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 18 Sep 2001 19:43:09 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13164
Date: 2001-09-18T19:43:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

There is an interesting discussion on comp.lang.c++.moderated
in which the topic of a safe C++ is being argued.   Some Ada
enthusiasts might find it amusing.   A couple of posters even
suggested that, instead of trying to make C++ safe, perhaps they
needed a new language design to satisfy the need.   Apparently,
they never heard of Ada.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com