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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mike Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/06 Message-ID: <79hujb$ck3@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441425101 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <77t3ld$nou$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79ce4s$lfq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79chc7$ko6@drn.newsguy.com> <79dodb$rhf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fm3e$ffs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fnce$iv8@drn.newsguy.com> <79grbs$d5u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java Date: 1999-02-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <79grbs$d5u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com says... > > >Now it is true that it is less extensive than the C++ >standard library, but there is no obvious principle that >more is more here. In fact Annex A represents exactly what >the designers of Ada felt was appropriate to standardize. > >For example, should a sort routine be standardized? >Probably not, there are so many different algorithms, and >different algorithms are appropriate for different >purposes, But a standard sort package would only specify the interface, and would leave the implementation up to the vendor. isn;t this how things are supposed to be? Maybe even supply a standard interface to a small number of class of sort API's if that is needed. (this is not different from the unix 'sort' command for example). >and this very much seems to me to be the sort >of thing that is better handled by external libraries >(which could of course be standardized if that seemed >desirable). As long as the "library" comes with the "system", and is standard (meaning application build on it on one platform, will compile and run with no changes on a different platform, and one does not need to worry if this library will be available or not on the other platform), it should not matter if you want to call the library "external" or part of the language. The point is, Ada has a very small standard library now, that is almost of no use to write advanced programs that requires advanced data structures and algorithms. Compares this to C++ and Java, they both "come" with standard advanced libraries out of the box. Java have so many API's defined (many with no implementation yet!), that it is even hard to find what is it that Java does not have an API for. (Also Perl have lots of standard libraries for doing all sorts of things). mike