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: 103376,897417b380f5731e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: STL, Ada, C++ (Was Re: The Next Microsoft?) Date: 2000/05/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 620492558 References: <8eg37k$15n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8epkoa$b8b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8eu0ob$7qv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <391328F0.1221@synquiry.com> <39133213.64A@Ganymede.com> <8f50hc$hpo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 957752401 220 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 8 May 2000, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article > , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > less powerful in some ways, due to the lack of automatic > > instantiation, more powerful in others. > > I am not at all convinced that automatic instantiation is > a help to the reader and maintainer, What would it take to convince you? That's not a rhetorical question. > on the contrary, it > seems very awkward to have uses of templates not be visible > from this point of view. If automatic instantiation were optional, then the client of the generic abstraction could decide that if it were awkward, they could explicitly instantiate that abstraction. The question then shifts to whether it is ever the case that automatic instantiation is a benefit to the reader, and if it is worth the implementation effort. > Sure it is a convenience for the writer, but I never consider > that a significant factor. I disagree. If it isn't damaging to readability and maintainability, or if one thinks the tradeoff there is favorable, I think considering convenience for the writer is reasonable. -- Brian