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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <cb0dbf43-bfdf-43b3-b9e6-3a5916462da8@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <81a101a3-b46e-4268-973c-356c6119ee2b@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <2785ff1e-661b-41ce-95a8-cef2862e2907@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <6239906b-e952-4bf9-8a11-b7faf942bdde@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <Xns9C665974FB608pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 13 Aug 2009 12:47:39 GMT
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 14602e50.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=kHGgd<G9Tbl4NKf;dO0UolK6_LM2JZB_clb=n7:_1lof:WUUlR<856oJ^CFCf=m]ol0`5S=kn3=ag
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7729
Date: 2009-08-13T12:47:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in news:6239906b-e952-
4bf9-8a11-b7faf942bdde@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> That's why introducing new reserved words in C++ would not buy
> anything.

Using library calls limits in some respects the way in which concepts can 
be expressed. It is true that the compiler can be aware of the semantics of 
the standard library. However, the syntax of function calls can still make 
expressing some ideas awkward. For example, I'm wondering how C++ try and 
catch blocks would look as library calls. My guess is that they would be 
harder to read and harder to understand than they are now as language 
syntax.

Ada provides language syntax for concurrency. It feels cleaner to me than 
any of the C++ thread libraries I have used. Is that because those C++ 
libraries just don't have the interface "right?" Maybe. But it might also 
be because it's just not possible to express concurrency in a nice clean 
way when using only library calls.

I've been recently studying the language Scala which provides a mechanism 
for, essentially, adding new syntax to the language (with some 
restrictions). Scala's support for concurrency (which is similar to 
Erlang's) is implemented as a library but the result looks like built in 
language syntax. It's nice.

Peter