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-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:31:52 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <b1f0b153-dc79-4b3c-a936-68723e76a4db@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297931512 17706 127.0.0.1 (17 Feb 2011 08:31:52
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
 posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6)
 Gecko/2009012111 Red Hat/3.0.6-1.el5 Firefox/3.0.6,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18298
Date: 2011-02-17T00:31:52-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

KK6GM wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> This is a serious question, seeking objective information. =A0I've
> worked with C for many years and I have a very good understanding of
> its weaknesses, which are many. =A0I haven't done nearly so much C++,
> and what I have done was not very intensive (didn't use a great many C+
> + features), so I don't have a good understanding of its weaknesses.
>
> So, without turning into a bash-fest, what are some general-consensus
> weaknesses or failures or problems with C++? =A0Comparisons with Ada are
> welcome but not required. =A0And my focus is in the embedded & real-time
> arenas, FWIW.

Besides the other flaws mentioned in this thread, C++ lacks the
equivalent of Ada's named access types.

type T is record
   null;
end record;

type T_Access_One is access T;
for T_Access_One'Storage_Pool use Pool_One;

type T_Access_Two is access T;
for T_Access_Two'Storage_Pool use Pool_Two;

In Ada, the two named access types are incompatible with one another;
they have no structural equivalence.  Also you can declare the access
types in a nested scope such that the compiler will detect any
pointers leaking out of that scope.

And don't get me started on the address arithmetic in C++...

(I don't like anonymous access types at all, neither in C++ nor in
Ada).

The ISO technical report TR 24772:2010 about programming language
vulnerabilities[1] should be the definitive reference.  The appendices
for Ada and SPARK are already complete and have been published in the
Ada User Journal[2] and in the SIGAda Letters.  I wonder what the
status of the C++ appendix is.  Does anyone here know?

[1] http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3D41542
[2] http://www.ada-europe.org/AUJ/index.html
The Ada appendix is in Volume 31, Issue 3 (September 2010)
The SPARK appendix is in Volume 31, Issue 4 (December 2010)

--
Ludovic Brenta.