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: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/12 Message-ID: <7a1dan$5bu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 443606907 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$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> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x10.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.133.185 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 12 14:20:18 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > There are indeed many horrible aspects of the C++ > language. But there are thread libraries freely > available. It should not matter that they are not part of > the standard, right? :-) It matters very much, and your reply here clearly shows that you have not spent much time trying to write portable multi-threaded programs in C++. There are two primary problems. 1. There *are* no portable standardized threads packages. Pthreads is an attempt, but it leaves many important details implementation dependent, and in any case, there are very few implementations that are 100% compliant to the IEEE standard. 2. Since threading is not part of the language, you have no idea what will and what will not work in the presence of threads, even a basic construct like X++ whose meaning is clear in the base language becomes unclear in the presence of threading (there are at least two possible formal semantics in this case). THe problem of which "standard" routines are or are not thread safe is a particularly severe one. So it does indeed matter very much whether functions are standardized, and each function must be argued carefully on its merits to see whether or not it should be included in the standard. I know you used :-) above, but still, the comment once again seems to say: Dewar thinks it is fine for sort not to be standardized but rather to be freely available. Sort is a function Therefore Dewar thinks this is fine for all functions. Please try to construct your syllogisms more carefully! P.S. I suggest you quote more selectively, it is very hard to find your replies buried in mounds of quoted material. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own