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,XPRIO
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a993df02f6d82f1,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Michael Young" <nobody@all.org>
Subject: More questions...
Date: 1999/03/07
Message-ID: <7bvb4j$lt0$1@remarQ.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 452414230
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: 920858579 Z.COWSAII8C13CFD0C usenet55.supernews.com
Organization: Posted via RemarQ,
 http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
Date: 1999-03-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I have two questions about Ada; more will certainly follow.

1) I've heard it said here that Ada, compared to other languages, is
"reader-friendly" at the expense of being "writer-unfriendly". I
understand the need to be reader friendly. I'm curious why you feel it
is friendlier to read than, say, C++.

2) Robert Dewar stated some time ago that finalize should be used
sparingly because of performance concerns. Is this still true of GNAT
3.11? More broadly, is this a language issue, or a feature specific only
to certain GNAT or other implementation? Destructors in C++ are simply
normal function calls. Are controlled types significantly different from
other types to make this unrealistic?

Thanks.

Michael.