Re: A question for my personal knowledge.

[Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com>]

Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>  For example, a properly designed C++ class requires at least one
>  constructor, a copy constructor, overloading of assignment, and a
>  destructor.

That is completely untrue, if you mean that the programmer must supply
those methods, since the compiler will write all of these for you if
you don't write them yourself. You only need your own if the default
ones are not suitable for your purposes. But for those cases, you would
have to do the same in Ada, I imagine.

>  A superficial examination of these two forms would lead one to
>  conclude that C++ is simpler.  That is a problem with superficial
>  examinations.  It is also the origin of an interesting paradox
>  when comparing C++ and Ada in more depth.

Why don't you show us an example of some class or object where the
Ada is simpler than the C++? Then we'll have something concrete to
look at.