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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Sazonov Cyril Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208536645 distribution: all sender: news@ssrun.arcom.spb.su organization: RIKC SZRGC newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-return-path: geol!geol.spb.su!cyril@bulldozer.arcom.spb.su Date: 1997-01-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I'm absollutely agree with Stanley Allen ! Just to say more: C++ doesn't suggest _ANY_ new ideas or tools in comparison with Ada ! > John (Max) Skaller wrote: >> Is C++ innovative? Too right it is. >> It has the most powerful support for genericity available >> in any widely used commercial language. (Sorry, Ada doesn't count, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You loaded the question, and therefore your dismissal of > Ada is the act of knocking down a strawman. > To hear that C++'s template mechanism is "innovative" and > "powerful" comes as a surprise. Parts of the C++ template > mechanism look like a borrowing of Ada's "generic" facility > (Stroustrup attributes this to Alex Stepanov, who had done > a great deal of work with Ada generics before designing the > C++ Standard Template Library). Unfortunately, the type > system in C++ is too weak to support anything as powerful > as Ada's generic facility. The C++ "template argument" > (which corresponds to Ada's "generic formal parameter") for > a type can only be of the form "class T". In Ada terms, > this would be like having all generic formals be > "type T is private". At all talks of 'new word', 'revolutionary technology' etc in the context of OOP and C++ especially seems to be strange for the ones who know Ada since, for example, 1989. All the ideas of the OOP had been implemented in Ada, even though they seamed to classic in the time of the language design. Triumphant march of the OOP and C++ is caused by some kind of lazyness and illiteracy. The ones who find that technology to be new simply aren't familiar with the Algol-family languages history. Ada delivers the programmer/developer a well built complex of neat, strict, clear and _orthogonal_ means. Its clear structure makes it very easy to study, 'immensity' of the language is nothing else but myth. As all Algol-family languages Ada assumes that the compiler will do _all_ the 'dirty' work. Surelly, this doesn't make anyone to fill him a 'real' programmer, as C/C++ do. And this language is really hard -- not for programmer, but for implementor only. The money saved for compiler production could be used for advertizing -- this is one more point of the commersial success of the C/C++. But mind the money saved by the implementors are saved by your hands, you are to do all what they didn't like to do ( just recollect and compare the type systems of Ada and C++ ! ). The very important thing is that Ada _forces_ you to _design_ your programms, even very small and simple, without it you will not do just a step with Ada. As for me I haven't seen nothing better than Ada. Best wishes from Russia for all of you and especially for Stanley Allen. 8 jan 97 Cyril Sazonov