Re: Ada Generic vs. C++ Templates

["DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>]

"James Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ACBBE65.D65BB767@worldnet.att.net...
> Francois Godme wrote:
> >
> > Even more, now that the language has been written down as a standard,
what can stop
> > the convergence of the C++ compilers to the standard?
>
> A related question coming to my mind is "What has kept the convergence
> of the C++ compilers to the standard up to this date?"
>
> As I recall, the GNAT compiler was certified as a correct and standard
> implementation of Ada95 within months of the standardization of Ada95.
>
> It has now been nearly four years since the standardization of C++.
> As of now, no compiler has been able to prove it properly implements
> the entire C++ standard.

You have implied that GNAT implements the entire Ada95 standard.

While all of the "required" elements are supported, some things are not.

Just try making use of "Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control" and you'll get a
message:
  Asynchonnous_Task_Control is not implemented.

I believe GNAT was the first (and may still be the only, I'm not sure) to be
"validated" for Ada95 including all annexes.  This does not mean the
compiler is without bugs, nor does it mean that all features described by
the Ada95 standard are implemented.  It merely means that the validation
test suite was passed.

Don't get me wrong, I think validation is a good thing.  But you must be
careful about what it really means.

BTW: I don't really care whether the compiler I use is validated, but it is
reassuring.

SteveD

>
> This lack of success cannot be simply attributed to compiler vendors'
> yearning for independence. I beleive the cause is the difficulties
> posed by the C++ standard itself.
>
> I am growing more pessimistic that compliant C++ a compiler will ever
> be produced.
>
> Jim Rogers
> Colorado Springs, Colorado USA