Re: Difference between ADA and c++

[jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <3403A080.2A07@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> writes:

> I still think the potential for misuse is too great.  The reason I
> equated it with promotions and demotions is that there is the same
> potential for problems.

Actually, I believe the more appropriate comparison would be with
macros - and in particular real macros.  Not the sort of simplistic
stuff you have in C, but something like CL macros.  The potential for
_really_ _big_ wins would be there - as well as the potential for
completely obscure code that no one can understand what it is.

Hmmmm, (somewhat off topic here) it just occured to me that you
could probably write the entire C++ template language as an embedded
language in CL using macros.  Anyone have a reason why that might not
be true?  In which case, AS's odd claim of a couple months or so ago
in c.l.l that only C++ with its templates was capable of expressing
the STL loses all meaning (not that it had much to begin with).

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari