Re: ada vs. cpp

[Robert*@ <Robert_member@newsguy.com>]

In article <slrn9s8bnv.11k.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>, lutz@iks-jena.de says...
>
 
>
>man Haskell. (or any other lazy evaluation language with unlimited arithmetics)
>

but you can implement this in a package. There is the BigNumber package in
Ada. Java has the BigInteger class where you can as big number as you
have memory and swap space. clearly any language has
to implement such a thing using something other than primitive types, so
what is the point of all of this? 

>>3. If you mean that Ada has no int-like numeric type with an undefined
>>   reaction on overflows. Well, is an undefined behaviour good?
>

>gnat without -gnato will produce erronous code. So we are close.
>

Ok, so use -gnato, add it to the makefile so you do not forget about it.
At least Ada tells one (when using a switch) about an overflow. Other
languages is silent about this and will refuse to tell the user, 
even if you put a gun to the compiler head.  (and people still use
C for doing floating point computation, go figure).

>OTOH C++ source is a type 0 language. Ada source a type 1 language. So they
>are different.
>

never heared of type 0 and type 1 languages, must be a new theory, but
I believe you. is it bad or good to be a type 1 vs type 0 language by the way?
which is better?