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: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: mike Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/10 Message-ID: <79s889$as4@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442860490 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79oj6d$eg8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79s23i$ena$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <79s23i$ena$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com says... >The interesting thing is that Ole-Hjalmar in this exchange >has not given even a single reason why sort in particular >should be standardized. > The argument is simple. Having a standard function to do X, makes it more convenient for the programmer using the language. If a standard function to do X was not part of the libraries that come in the box, then the programmer would either go use a different language tat has those functions they need, or spend more time hunting the net looking for such a function, or spend more time writing their own. ofcourse having a standard function to do X, does not mean that one has to use that function, they could still use an external library that provide a different function to do X also. But the point is that, the more standard functions come in the box, the more popular the language become for the programmers. Take Java for example. Java provides a package for doing SQL stuff. This means it is now very easy to use Java to access databases. This has also meant more and more programmers are now using Java to write database applications. (No one even asks if Java SQL package is the 'best' in the world, programmers are happy that it comes as part of Java packages out of the box). If Ada had an SQL package as part of its standard or annex libraries, its effect would have been to make Ada more popular also. people want convenient things. and programmers are people, so it follows that programmers want convenient languages ;) >On the other hand, some cogent arguments for NOT >standardizing sort have been presented. Certainly no one >writing Ada programs has to rewrite a sort algorithm from >scratch. There is a large library of standard sort routines ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to choose from, and you choose the one that fits your needs >best. > if they are standard, then it would be easy to package them as part of an Ada pacakge and ship it with GNAT (as an auxillary set of Ada standard library sort of)?. For me, it does not really matter if the packages are part of the standard language proper, or an extention, or part of annex, or whatever you want to call it. The point is, as long as they come in the same box that compiler comes in, I am, and millions and millions of other Ada programmers will be happy. mike