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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,103b407e8b68350b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-05 20:20:55 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? One silly idea..
Date: 5 Jan 2003 20:20:55 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <ba162549.0301052020.18dd7d7a@posting.google.com>
References: <VtlQ9.42144$%3.10762066@twister.neo.rr.com>
 <C900921B7A3FDDD4.5FD752FF5D42F9AF.349D2214D482463F@lp.airnews.net>
 <autmq3$4oe$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> <3E147D79.2070703@cogeco.ca>
 <BA3A535D.177F%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <ba162549.0301030124.237c7a7e@posting.google.com>
 <4519e058.0301031434.51a0c880@posting.google.com>
 <ba162549.0301040053.1e7dbedc@posting.google.com>
 <av6hla$cggao$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.219.89.90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041826855 30217 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2003 04:20:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jan 2003 04:20:55 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32599
Date: 2003-01-06T04:20:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<av6hla$cggao$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>...
> Kevin Cline wrote:
> 
> > Today, the features that Ada provides have little value
> > compared with the features that C++ provides and Ada lacks:
> > the STL, automatic template function instantiation,
> 
> Generics in any form is an illness of programming languages.
> 
> > smooth integration of user-defined and primitive datatypes,
> 
> Why do you think C++ is better in that respect? 

Because all operations applicable to C++ fundamental types can be made
to work for user-defined types.  Ada's fundamental types have
attributes, but those attributes can not be provided for user-defined
types.  This makes generic programming in Ada more difficult than
generic programming in C++.


> C++ OO model is badly flawed 
> as compared with Ada's one. In any case both Ada and C++ have primitive 
> types separated from user-defined types by a fire wall. The difference is 
> that Ada's design potentially allows to mend this, while in C++ it is 
> beyond repair.

You need to substantiate this claim; I have found the opposite to be
true.

> 
> > and bindings to every API in existence.
> 
> That's not language fault. 

I didn't say that it was a language flaw.  But it makes Ada more
difficult
to integrate with existing APIs.

> This can be addressed to any language except C. 

> Even C++ suffers from that: you might need 'extern "C" {}' to call most of 
> API functions. 

Generally I don't have to supply "extern C ... " because the most
header
files handle the problem.  Even if they don't, I can simply say:

extern "C" {
#include "someAPI.h"
}

rather than redeclaring every one of the functions needed.