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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e28ffe0eaf31d1b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ Date: 1997/09/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270004215 Distribution: world References: <34090462.4652@easystreet.com> <340C47F8.670B@osc.edu> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Brian Rogoff writes: > > Ada may have advantages over C++, but only C++ allows these incredibly > > powerful programming techniques. Unfortunately, the techniques are also > > I believe you can do all of this stuff with Common Lisp macros. Actually, CL macros seem much more generally capable than C++ templates. For one thing, they aren't tied to the type system. For another, they can avail themselves of the full capabilities of CL (including closures). And, I still think you could write the C++ template facility (such as it is) in CL macros as an embedded langauge (not that this would actually be useful or worth anything - just a demonstration). It would likely even be relatively straightforward, but to be fair, I haven't looked at the possibility that closely. > automatic instantiation, but that won't be able to do what you want. What > *you* want seems to be macros. Most Ada-philes seem to be macro-phobic, > but don't let that stop you. Right. I'm pretty skeptical of macros (real ones ala' CL) in something like Ada (or C++ or anything like them). They just don't seem to fit the spirit of the language. /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