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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-04 01:40:32 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!terra.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de!news.th-darmstadt.de!zib-berlin.de!math.fu-berlin.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!mfx
From: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks)
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object
Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
Followup-To: comp.programming
Date: 03 Dec 1994 11:07:33 GMT
Organization: TU Berlin Fachbereich Informatik
Message-ID: <3bpj28$a7v@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <1994Nov29.154220.27952@cognos.com> <D03AL2.5xw@aston.ac.uk>
	<3blinp$8dm@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lenin.cs.tu-berlin.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-reply-to: dewar@cs.nyu.edu's message of 01 Dec 1994 23:29:13 MET
Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:8253 comp.lang.c:33275 comp.programming:5595
 comp.lang.c++:39494 comp.object:9391
Date: 1994-12-03T11:07:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

[follow-up set to comp.programming]

In article <3blinp$8dm@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Gareth's idea that knowing C means that learning C++ is easy, and his
> view that Ada is a much more complex language than C++ are laughable, 
[...]

When programming C++, you must really distinguish between "being able to
use it" and "mastering it in every last nitty-gritty detail". I know C
programmers who have been programming correct C++ after a two-hour intro,
simply by ignoring most of the "OO"-features. There is no single "correct"
paradigm for programming C++, and some of the simplest ones employ classes
as better structs, or as modules.  You can use C++ profitably without ever
knowing what a copy constructor (or even a reference!) is, especially if
you employ third-party class packages that provide objects that "work just
like the basic types".

C++ _is_ incredibly complex, but most of that complexity is provided for
_library writers_. The "end user programmer", if there ever is such a
beast, _can_ use C++ as better-C-with-typechecking.

All with a big IMHO,
	Markus 

PS: I'd rather programming  in SML, or  Clean, or Self, or evern  Modula-3,
but we are talking C-vs-Pascal here...