Re: ada vs. cpp

[dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry Kazakov)]

On 9 Oct 2001 15:29:17 GMT, David Starner
<dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 08:36:20 -0500, Wes Groleau <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ada doesn't have integers. What does that say about Ada?
>> 
>> Is this a troll or genuine ignorance?
>
>The post to which I was responding claimed that C++ doesn't have
>strings. By just as valid logic, Ada doesn't have integers; there are no
>types (even library types) that can represent all of the integers.

1. If you mean that Ada has no type to represent the whole set of all
integers, yes it is true. [as well as it is for all other languages
designed for finite discrete machines]

2. If you mean that Ada does not have an integer type that acts like
C's unsigned int, then you are wrong. [see modular numeric types in
Ada, which are far more generic and comfortable than their limited
equivalents in C]

3. If you mean that Ada has no int-like numeric type with an undefined
reaction on overflows. Well, is an undefined behaviour good?

4. If your point is that a language *has* all types [all programs, all
whatsoever] one could develop using the language then well, all
languages are more or less equivalent. What is not equivalent is the
developing and maintenance costs [which possibly could  be interesting
for customers. Less interesting for them of course, is a kind of
perplexity a programmer might feel when he/she must to switch from Ada
to C++]

>Somehow, Ada people don't like the idea; it seems to be less than
>conducive to communication.

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov