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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe82bd3a72926e1a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-16 00:05:00 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!freenix!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.easynews.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!easynews.net!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "Size" of Ada vs. C++
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:51:07 +0200
Organization: Enyo's not your organization
Message-ID: <87y9mcoz6s.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de>
 <87ofn8a9dv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <bMIy7.30243$ev2.36939@www.newsranger.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14631
Date: 2001-10-16T08:51:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.