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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cf653444208df72 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-09 07:13:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BC30621.BDF74138@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp References: <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com> <9puvdc$225$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:13:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.32.62 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1002636834 12.86.32.62 (Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:13:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:13:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14015 Date: 2001-10-09T14:13:54+00:00 List-Id: 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