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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-04 17:30:18 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!inmet!dsd!stt
From: stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
Message-ID: <Cx6736.F2B@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
References: <milodCwwqMy.CK@netcom.com> <cppCx20IA.Anx@netcom.com>
 <36msgr$qq2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <milodCx47ys.HxB@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 22:42:42 GMT
Date: 1994-10-04T22:42:42+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I believe your response simply pointed out one of the fundamental
differences between C++ and Ada.  In C++, you can build
safe abstractions if you work at it, but the defaults
provided by the language are unsafe.  In Ada, the defaults
provided by the langauge are safe, and if you work at it,
you can circumvent the safety checks.

Both are valid approaches.  My experience favors having
the language be inherently safe, with an ability to suppress
or circumvent the checking when circumstances demand it.
I could easily imagine that others have other experiences
and other preferences.

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138