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-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!not-for-mail From: azdo_b@yahoo.es (Alberto) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: 10 Mar 2005 23:50:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.58.1.42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110527424 15410 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2005 07:50:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9108 comp.lang.c++:45084 comp.realtime:1251 comp.software-eng:4819 Date: 2005-03-10T23:50:24-08:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message > Nobody objects to someone using the name ADA in a program written in Ada. > The comments are about someone using improper capitalization in text > written in English, a language which is case-sensitive. As many people on this thread noticed, it was only a (bad?) joke. I simply wanted to remark that I was somewhat tired of reading the same story of Ada L. when some innocent soul dared to write "ADA" :) > > 3. Many of you want us to believe that ADa performs ra nge checking > > without loss of performance: it can be true at compile time with fixed > > ranges, but it can't definitely be done without chechinkg array bounds > > every time data is accessed if we don't know these bounds before > > compiling (e.g.: typical cases where dynamic allocation of memory is > > used) > > As has been stated, it is _much_ more efficient that do-it-yourself > range checking written in C++, because the compiler has more data. > For those who insist on _no_ range checking (compute intensive inner > loops), turn off the range checking if it gets in the way for that > one area of code. But be certain it gets in the way first - it > is common to make bad guesses about whether range checking will > affect overall performance. Ada programmers are better able than > C* programmers to know that, because in Ada it is easier to turn > range checking on and off. Yes, but consider the existence of STL that lets you not to "do-it-yourself" when storing or accesing data ;) > > > mechanisms, only interfaces (pure virtual classes)[2]. To me, it > > sounds reasonable to work with the last version of a compiler when > > possible. > > That does not seem so reasonable to people working on a mission-critical > 30 year project. In many cases such circumstances warrant working with > the compiler originally used for the project. You are right: if something works, it is usually better not to touch it, but in this case, you are stuck with Ada83!