Re: "Size" of Ada vs. C++

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

>>I'm not sure if this is true if you look at the language core only
>>(and don't take into account any non-essential run-time library
>>components, such as containers or valarrays).
>
> Then explain in one simple paragraph how C++ constructors and
> destructors work

I'm going to do that if you describe how to implement smart pointers
in Ada (without taking advantage of an implementation permission). ;-)

> This is all stuff that is pretty much required for basic C++ programming, and
> its more arcane and exception-riddled than most English spelling rules.

This is very true, but it doesn't make Ada a smaller language than C++
per se.

> If we throw out annex-based libraries as you suggest, Ada doesn't even *have*
> constructors and destructors to talk about. :-)

Section 7.6 is not in Annex A.

> Or we can compare the "cast system" of the two languages. Ada's rule
> is pretty simple: the types have to be derived from each other, or
> predefined numeric types. C++ on the other hand, has at least 3
> different types of cast, plus an old fashioned implicit one.

What about Ada.Unchecked_Conversion?  It's comparable to
reinterpret_cast<>.

> To make things more interesting, constructor writers
> can inadvertently create new implicit ones if they aren't careful...

That's why the "explicit" keyword was introduced.

Anyway, I think it's rather strange to judge a language by the "size"
of its definition.