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-Thread: 103376,80435549e92d4e0c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:57:01 -0400 From: James Alan Farrell Organization: nospam User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Charles container library usage examples References: <87mzmssqbq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070104030908080704030007" NNTP-Posting-Host: fw.grammatech.com Message-ID: <4321a2e0_3@newsfeed.slurp.net> X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1126277856 209.4.89.67 (9 Sep 2005 09:57:36 -0500) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.4.89.67 Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!newsfeed.slurp.net!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4554 Date: 2005-09-09T10:57:01-04:00 List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070104030908080704030007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > You can see I ditched the list for a simple array! I already had more > punishment than I cared for! ;-) I sort of don't mind going to this > much trouble for the advantages that Ada can give me over, say, Lisp > (which is what I'm translating from) in terms of execution speed, low > level control, native concurrency, etc. etc., but it *is* a fair bit > to replace five lines of unremarkable Lisp! :-) I was thinking that > the elaborateness of all this must provide a powerful disincentive for > Ada programmers to use collections/containers. Of course, if you > really need a collection, then you'll need to go to the trouble to > have one; but I'm thinking that there must be a whole lot of in > between cases where, although you can just get by with, say, arrays, > records, classes, even home-grown linked lists, and so on, it really > would be better to use the appropriate data structure and > algorithms. Anyway, that's just me daydreaming. Perhaps someone might > have something actually sensible to say about these thoughts. I'm never sure if my opinions are sensible or not, but... All languages have strengths, or they would dissappear through disuse. The strengths of different languages must be different or we'd have just one language. Therefor all languages must also have (comparative) weaknesses. One strength of Lisp is how easy it is to use dynamic data structures. But it has weaknesses in weak typing and slow execution. Setting up the Charles library seems to me about equal in lines of code and what you have to know to setting up STLs in C++. The first few times is quite confusing and frustrating, but it gets easier as you do it more often. It is still easier than creating your own from scratch. JAF --------------070104030908080704030007 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="jfarrell.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jfarrell.vcf" begin:vcard fn:James Alan Farrell n:Farrell;James org:GrammaTech version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070104030908080704030007--