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: 103376,198c6302c4a0b0d7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-20 18:46:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3c1dc786@pull.gecm.com> <1008601517.470745@edh3> <1008626816.690418@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1008690461.380980@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <_T4U7.8959$xl6.991260@rwcrnsc54> Subject: Re: Ada / C++ comparison paper X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: yQwU7-187370-xl6-1194677@rwcrnsc54 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1008902794 yQwU7-187370-xl6-1194677@rwcrnsc54 (Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:46:34 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:46:34 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:46:34 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18185 Date: 2001-12-21T02:46:34+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:tQrU7.5909$XC5.7898@www.newsranger.com... > In article <_T4U7.8959$xl6.991260@rwcrnsc54>, Mark Lundquist says... > > > > > >"Hyman Rosen" wrote in message > >news:1008690461.380980@master.nyc.kbcfp.com... > >>[snip...] > >> The paper argues that C++'s lack of a standard for multi- > >> tasking and real-time programming leads to the use of ad-hoc, > >> unportable, and incomplete libraries. It fails to mention that > >> Ada's lack of standard containers and algorithms leads to the > >> same (as witness the unending List Strawman thread). > > > >That's a cheap shot! :-) It's too early to say that that thread is > >"unending" (sort of like the halting problem :-). > > But its a fair one, in that his point was that this stuff is *already* standard > in C++. You'd be hard-pressed to prove that concurrency is more important to the > average developer than containers. No, it's the "undending" part I was referring to... The point you make above is one that I agree with -- in fact, in the posting of mine that you quote from, I made exactly that point (in the next paragraph). -- mark