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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-16 17:14:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:14:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.218.203 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076980498 66.81.218.203 (Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:14:58 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:14:58 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5618 comp.lang.c++:19321 Date: 2004-02-17T01:14:58+00:00 List-Id: "Jerry Coffin" wrote in message news:MPG.1a93af8d8189b567989c8a@news.clspco.adelphia.net... > In article <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com>, > krischik@users.sourceforge.net says... In response to the earlier assertion that, > > > Ada templates are far more powerfull then C++. > > Experience tends to indicate otherwise. In point of fact, Alexander > Stepanov had a great deal of input into the design of templates in C++, > largely because Ada generics didn't support what he wanted. > > Other large projects have reflected the same difference. Just for > example, the Booch components started out in Ada 83, got ported to C++, > and then ported back to Ada (95). The original Ada version was ~125,000 > lines of code. The C++ version was about 12,000 lines of code. A issue with Ada 83 generics was the inability to design with generic formal package parameters. In this respect, C++ had a significant edge in the design of reusable templates. With Ada 95, this problem was resolved. There are still some features of C++ templates that one does not find in Ada, but those features are just complicated enough that a designer can make some entertaining mistakes that fail the understandability test. Another important point is the difference in the goals of Ada and C++. For Ada, we continue to focus on the issue of maximizing the amount of error checking that can be accomplished at compile-time. While C++ continues to improve in this respect, it also still falls short of what Ada can do to satisfy this goal. That being said, the goal itself has produced some rules that are also difficult to understand, particularly when considering generic formal package parameters. I have covered this topic in Ada Distilled with a simple fully-coded example that some programmers have found useful in making the concept accessible. Richard Riehle