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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,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: 1999/02/07 Message-ID: <79k65l$s0t@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441671020 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79jeos$bu4@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java Date: 1999-02-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <79jeos$bu4@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "James says... > > >Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote in message ... >> >>But the point you seem to be missing is that this libarry now is a >>*standard* part of C++. >> >>Comments? > > >Well, yes. > >The C++ libraries are quit nice. Unfortunately they are not nearly >what I really need for my domain. > >You see, I need a set of libraries ( or more simply language >capabilities ) which support the development of a highly concurrent >design of asynchronous tasks. The tasks are REQUIRED by >contract to communicate using shared message queues. > >I know I can do all this in C++. The trouble is that the language has >no libraries or intrinsic capabilities in these areas. I must either buy >or make my own. > This is really a question of "should a langauge have a build-in support for threads or not" . This is not a question of libraries. This question has been debated many times, and if the only argument you have for Ada over C++ is this, then this is a weak argument, (Java have build-in support for threads, plus much more rich standard library than Ada). It is not clear which is better to have a build-in support in the language for threads or using an external STANDARD threads library instead. nowadays posix pthreads IS standard. With the pthreads library you can build anything you can build with Ada tasks and more (Ada tasks actually are implemented using pthreads on such platforms). >Ada gives me all of this as part of the basic language. I do not even >need to call libraries to have tasking or protected types. > I does not matter. pthreads is standard, calling it from your program is not much different from using a language build-in task. you simply add pthreads library to you Makefile and that is it. It is no big deal. I agree that Ada tasks and things like protected types make life a little easier since it is a higher level abstraction than using pthreads directly, but someone who knows pthreads well, can build these abstraction using pthreads also (as in threads C++ classes which acts as higher level wrappers around pthreads), a little more work, yes, but it is not hard to use pthreads anyway, it is a very flexible API, and you get the primitives that you can build any model you want from. The point is, at the end of the day, it comes back to how extensive and usefull is the standard library is. In Ada, it is not, with C++ and Java, the standard library is much more advanced. GNAT for example is doing something good by adding standard GNAT packages as part of GNAT such as that pattern matching package. Much more of this is needed. Then we can talk real business. mike