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: 103376,80e8e0df8032d89e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-02 10:32:51 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!perez From: perez@oldcolo.com (Carlos Perez) Subject: Re: Is C/C++ the future? Message-ID: Sender: news@csn.org (The Daily Planet) Nntp-Posting-Host: oldcolo.com Organization: Old Colorado City Communications (oldcolo.com - login "newuser") X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] References: <1994Oct28.101326@di.epfl.ch> <394fvv$hnm@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <395kgi$aun@source.asset.com> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 04:29:07 GMT Date: 1994-11-02T04:29:07+00:00 List-Id: AdaWorks (adaworks@netcom.com) wrote: : The article is excerpted from the "Unix Hater's Handbook," published : at MIT. It is exceptionally uncomplimentary of C++. In fact, the : tone is reminiscent of that found in some early anti-Ada tracts. I read the article and I agree somewhat. I have heard lots of whining about Ada generics (substitute C++ templates today). But I have never heard of Ada being called "object oriented assembly language". Nor has Ada lacked a formal grammar (is it really true that C++ lacks a formal grammar?). Strong typing-- yup, I have heard lots of complaining here. Most programmers who hate strong typing don't really understand how to use types in the first place and struggle with it as much as dentist's drill -- its a great tool for the experienced but seems to create a bloody mess in the wrong hands. Anyways, the article is a hoot and worth the comic relief. -- Carlos Perez (pardon me, but your memory is leaking ;-)