Re: why learn C?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"kevin cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175501602.127760.186120@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 9:41 pm, "jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net"  For instance:
...
>
> > Ada does not provide a direct equivalent to C++ constructors
> > and destructors. While this may seem a problem to a C++ or
> > Java programmer,
>
> It's a huge problem when a class needs initialization.  Then you have
> to mess around with controlled types.

You have that backwards: there is (almost) no reason for a tagged type to
not be controlled in Ada. All new types should be declared that way, unless
there is a compelling reason why the (tiny) space and time overhead matters.
I don't believe that there are many (if any) such types. But if there are
such types, how do you write a C++ class for them that doesn't have that
overhead?

> > it does have the virtue of not providing
> > an avenue for the error handled by this rule.
>
> No, instead you get to deal with the problem of having objects that
> have been created but require further initialization before use.  Or
> else you have to create a controlled type, which is just complex
> enough that most Ada programmers probably don't quite understand it,
> so mostly it doesn't get done.

Are these "most Ada programmers" the same as the "most C++ programmers" that
you claim don't matter? You're only willing to talk about "expert C++
programmers", so I think it is only fair that we only talk about "expert Ada
programmers". And no one that doesn't understand at least the basics of
controlled types (which are nearly trivial) could possibly be called an Ada
expert.

                                Randy.