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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,198c6302c4a0b0d7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-18 17:47:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!ord-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: was Re: Ada / C++ comparison paper anymore In-Reply-To: <_xRT7.4398$xl6.682759@rwcrnsc54> Message-ID: References: <3c1dc786@pull.gecm.com> <1008601517.470745@edh3> <1008626816.690418@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1008690461.380980@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <_xRT7.4398$xl6.682759@rwcrnsc54> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:47:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.220.65.223 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: ord-read.news.verio.net 1008726476 192.220.65.223 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:47:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:47:56 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18079 Date: 2001-12-19T01:47:56+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Mark Lundquist wrote: > "Brian Rogoff" wrote in message > news:Pine.BSF.4.40.0112181924260.32168-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net... > > > I have made the point many > > times that I think some amount of inference/automatic instantiation, like > > what C++ has, would be a great thing in an Ada like language. > > Yes. It's good to know that at least *one* more Ada fan likes this capability. If I put my C++ hat on, what I'd really like over there (also highly unlikely :-() would be a resyntaxing so that it looked something like SPECS (?), Damien Conway's "C++ Resyntaxed" proposal. And, of course, more nesting. In the same way that I think its unfortunate that some people can't look past Ada syntax flaws, I think its equally sad that people can't look past C++ syntax flaws to see some of the interesting (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense here) features of that language. I don't think either language is my ideal low level language, but each has aspects worthy of taking. Note that I also consider both to be low level languages. > > I'd also be > > happy with a bit more shorthand, like +:= > > As long as it doesn't return a value :-) Of course! > I might prefer a more longhand shorthand :-), e.g. > > X'Increment; -- (X names object of integer type) > X'Increase (By => 1.23); -- (X names object of any numeric type, > here a FP type) > etc... Well, you can do something pretty close now with a generic package and the function call notation. Given that, I'd prefer operators. I find it easier to read code with some shorthand. I think Ada goes a bit too far in not having enough, and C++ goes a bit too far in having some bad syntax and overloaded names. It's easier to forgive C++ here, since it is supposed to be as compatible with C as possible. I guess the real mistake in Ada was the requirement about the restricted character set. Stroustrup made some comment, I forget where, that he wished he could have started with Algol-68 as a base instead of C, but that obviously that would have gone nowhere. Sigh. Now that would have been an amazing language. -- Brian