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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,982ed90dd25179ec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-29 14:31:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!central.cox.net!cox.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: point by point advantages of Ada Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:30:24 -0600 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: References: <1041186672.615164@ns2-ext.dcu.ie> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun Dec 29 16:30:50 2002 NNTP-Posting-Host: !`/tE1k-X/O@)kD (Encoded at Airnews!) 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:32384 Date: 2002-12-29T16:30:24-06:00 List-Id: 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" 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. >