Re: ada vs. cpp

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> I don't think this would help. Most of the C++/Java guys don't specifically
> hate Ada syntax nearly as much as they hate the strong typing and error
> checking and other semantic features of Ada. They *want* a language that is
> loose. I suppose you could give them a language that is "loose" using Ada
> syntax, but then why bother? It wouldn't be Ada anymore. (They'd still
> object to its wordiness - you'd be better off developing a language where
> every non-alpha character represented some operation or language feature.
> :-)

There seem to be at least two camps in the C++ community.
comp.lang.c++.moderated has a long thread discussing "Safe C++".
The overall idea from most proponents is the addition of array bounds
checking and numeric range checking.

The moderators have had enough references to Ada in this thread.
If you want to mention Ada, you must also include significant C++
content.

Some related discussions have been occuring in another thread
"Is C++ too complicated?". The most recent topic discussed in this
thread is whether or not C++ would benefit from the development of a
reference implementation. This topic was inspired by input from some
Ada people.

> As for GC - I'd rather leave that implementation defined. Ada would lose a
> lot of usefulness in embedded/realtime work if it was mandatory that GC be
> in it. As it stands, an implementation *could* provide GC if there was a
> demand for it. So far, most users aren't screaming for it.
> 

I would, however, like to see some publicly available GC
implementations for Ada.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA