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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no 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 07:17:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: "Size" of Ada vs. C++ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:07:09 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9qheuf$8pe$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9q223u$lap2j$1@ID-77397.news.dfncis.de> <87ofn8a9dv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1003241231 9006 136.170.200.133 (16 Oct 2001 14:07:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2001 14:07:11 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14677 Date: 2001-10-16T14:07:11+00:00 List-Id: You need not even go that far - although I agree that the constructor/destructor thingie is so confusing and filled with "I before E except after C..." kinds of rules that you could probably write a novel on that subject alone. Just consider the rules about infix operators and expression evaluation - throw in side effects just for grins - and see how fast you've asked for an arcane, cryptic, and turgid monograph be written on the subject. Feature for feature, C++ may in some sense be smaller - no tasks for one thing. However, in terms of all the options and semantics of the features it *does* have, I think one would have to conclude that it is definitely a bigger language. Perhaps a half-way fair comparison might be based on the size of the compiler front-ends required for both languages? (Although any comparison of any code size is extremely problematic - as we've discussed here before.) The weight of the ISO standard documents as a metric?) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:bMIy7.30243$ev2.36939@www.newsranger.com... > > Then explain in one simple paragraph how C++ constructors and destructors work > (how they are invoked, what you have to do to make one "default", how you > prevent their use in parameter passing or as implicit casts, how you have to > invoke the parent's constructors from the constructor of a child, how to ensure > all destructors in a object's type hierarchy get called during delete, etc.) > 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. > > If we throw out annex-based libraries as you suggest, Ada doesn't even *have* > constructors and destructors to talk about. :-) > > 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. To make things more interesting, constructor writers > can inadvertently create new implicit ones if they aren't careful... > > I'm not saying all this extra stuff in C++ is *bad*. But there certianly is way > more of it. > > --- > T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. > However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.