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,c7a5c447f88aecaa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-28 10:12:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttln1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: WAS Re: Pre-Elaboration clarification. 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: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:12:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.248.56.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttln1.wa.home.com 1006971158 24.248.56.237 (Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:12:38 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:12:38 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17118 Date: 2001-11-28T18:12:38+00:00 List-Id: Sorry, this isn't about elaboration or anything, but I couldn't think of a good, non-inflammatory, i.e. non-C++-bashing :-) subject line for this... "Matthew Heaney" wrote in message news:u0a91lan036634@corp.supernews.com... > You can read John Lakos' Large > Scale C++ Software Design for ideas that apply to either C++ or Ada95. I recommend this book to anyone considering Ada, to read as part of a comparative language study. For one, it's a good book. This is really how you have to live in C++. But the reasons why are oh-so-illustrative. One of the dings you hear against Ada is that it's full of all these confining *rules*, which supposedly stifle one's creativity, and result in unacceptable syntactic overhead (i.e. verbiage) in the 0.1% of cases when one needs to do something unsafe. But it turns out that survival with C++ depends on a system of conventions, which are outside the language and must be developed and written about by gurus in books, and which have to be enforced, not by a compiler but by a human being (this being both error prone and a human resource drain). I.e., the conventions become draconian rules! Since we have to have rules, I'd a lot rather have them be language rules enforced by a compiler than ad hoc provincial rules enforced by a "conventions czar". -- mark