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: 109fba,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: fac41,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,e0a59694a441eb7b X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,gid103376,gidfac41,gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-23 02:54:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail From: Calum Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object Subject: Re: OOP Language for OS Development Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <95db0572.0404142153.431fd058@posting.google.com> <566e2bfb.0404181753.2844342f@posting.google.com> <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.134.58.49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk 1082714099 1777 217.134.58.49 (23 Apr 2004 09:54:59 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 09:54:59 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr> Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++:31235 comp.lang.ada:7422 comp.lang.eiffel:720 comp.object:11019 Date: 2004-04-23T09:54:59+00:00 List-Id: Philippe Ribet wrote: > Calum wrote: > >> Philippe Ribet wrote: >> >>> EventHelix.com wrote: >>> >>>> At this point C++ would seem to be the best choice. I don't think >>>> any other >>>> language would match C++ in performance and power. >>>> >>> >>> Do you at least ever heard of Eiffel? I would say that C++ is far >>> from matching Eiffel power. >> >> >> >> In terms of "raw power", both languages are Turing powerful (if we >> ignore the "can a finite computer be Turing complete" pedentry). So >> power in what sense? What's really nice and neat to do in Eiffel that >> is difficult in C++? Give some source code, or at the very least a >> link to an article. > > > It's obvious here that language power means expressivity. I am in no doubt that Eiffel is cleaner safer language, however that's not quite the same as power. So what can you express in Eiffel that cannot be expressed in C++? [Actually, resolving name-clashes in multiple inheritance is one, contracts is another.] But are these fundamentally difficult in C++, or just a little uglier? >> Can for example Eiffel implement its own allocators, or is its type >> system itself Turing complete (C++ templates)? > > > Could you please re-formulate questions about allocators and type > system? I do not understand what you mean, sorry. C++ allows you to specify where in memory an object resides. This is a low-level feature that most people would not use, but gives C-like performance since you can cache-localize data, and implement more efficient memory managers where you know the allocation patterns. Are parameterized types in Eiffel as flexible as those in C++?