Re: point by point advantages of Ada

["John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>]

Hm.

It just occurs to me.

Why is it that we never hear complaints about C++ being a language "designed
by a committee", given the HUGE expansion of the language during the ISO
"standardization" process?

If the ISO standardization had been just that, standardizing current usage,
all of the existing compilers should have become standard-compliant almost
immediately.  Instead, the ISO committee undertook a HUGE expansion of the
language, and, as a direct result, it has taken YEARS for the FIRST compiler
to become compliant, and Comeau isn't exactly one of the mainstream vendors.

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:vcKP9.5429$Xc.2860@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> > Dispatching in C++ does have an expressive advantage over dispatching in
> > Ada 95.
>
> Does it? As far as I know, the mechanisms are exactly the same,
> even though the syntactic expression is different. I wouldn't
> characterize C++'s way as a particular advantage, notwithstanding
> the (snipped) argument below.
>
> > Modern C++ libraries might have thread-safe exceptions.
>
> Threads are not part of the Standard, but when implementations
> support them, I believe exceptions work correctly, and don't
> interfere with other threads.
>
> > ISO C++ does have generics (called templates in the context of C++).
>
> And arguably better than Ada's version.
>
> > There is an ISO standard for C++ (which does not yet have a full
> > implementation after several years).
>
> Fortunately, this has just become no longer true. The compiler sold
> by Comeau, featuring a front end created by the Edison Design Group
> and a library built by Dinkumware, now supports Standard C++ in its
> entirety.
>