Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?

[REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>]

On Aug 13, 9:55 am, John McCabe <j...@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Having followed this train of messages further, I still don't see that
> you have justified the comment about C++ serving a different community
> to Ada. As I see it, the community is the same (they're both basically
> general purpose OO programming languages), it's just a viewpoint
> that's different.

Maybe it's no justified to your satisfaction (I honestly don't care).
I think if you ask the C++ community, they would say they are
different from the Ada community (and don't feel the need to justify
why). Different--not better or worse. I wouldn't call Ada or C++ OO
languages. C++ is considered multi-paradigm. I would think Ada is the
same, but I don't know if the Ada community uses that term.

>
> In a lot of ways what you have argued is that the perception of C++ as
> a faster language leads to its choice in some situations. In my view,
> many people use C++ because that's all they know and they don't want
> to learn anything different even when it may be superior in many ways.

NO, I was not arguing C++ is a faster language. There is no such thing
as a faster language. I am arguing what that community considers
important. Anyone here can tell me if I am wrong, but I believe the
Ada community considered a safe language paramount. The C++ community
does not. Period.

You perceptions are baseless. No one I know, "only knows C++" or "only
knows Ada." I've used many languages in my career, as has my coworkers
(and I'm sure many here has done).

>
> Of course C++ has some features that make it easier to use for certain
> applications, e.g. actual MI rather than the interface level MI
> available in Ada and Java, but there are loads of resources out there
> describing why that is dangerous.

Every language feature can be abused. I never found that a good reason
to disallow it. Although I don't understand your reasons for being it
up. I was never arguing Ada vs C++.

>
> Anyhow - this wasn't meant to be a general C++ Vs Ada thread, so I'm
> going to stop there.

That was your doing. I don't think anyone else on this thread was
arguing that. My only point was they are different, and difference is
good. If two things are exactly the same, what is the point? Why do I
need C++ to implement Ada's threading model? I already have that.


REH