Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>]

In article <t7ln3un337.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>,
	Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> wrote:

>"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
>> Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400, just to see if
>> the C++ standard has stabilized by then.
>
>The C++ Standard is already stabilized. It's ISO/IEC 14882.
>It was approved by ANSI on 7/27/98.

C++, the Standard, is relatively stable.  Still has problems with numerics
though since the numerics guy left the project before that part got really stable.

The C++ compilers are not stable, not consistent, and not conformant with the
standard.  Of course, one can also find Ada compilers that fit that description.

We have to differentiate between the compiler publisher's implementation and the
description of the standard.  When making this distinction, Ada, the language, is 
clearly better defined.  C++ is better when it comes to finding tools and variety
of compilers from which to select.  C++, in its earliest forms, when Dr. Stroustup
still had control over its destiny, was showing signs of becoming a relatively good 
language.  What it has become, with the new standard, is messier than it could
have been.  Too bad.  Some who have looked at  Ada 95 feel the same  way about 
what Ada has become.  I guess we can never satisfy everyone.  That seems to be part
of the motivation for the mad rush to Java:  the most recent entry into the "silver
bullet" contest.  Funny how Dr. Brooks' challenge remains unfulfilled.

Richard Riehle