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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-15 10:08:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: 15 Sep 2003 13:00:30 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1063645384 11371 128.183.235.92 (15 Sep 2003 17:03:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2003 17:03:04 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42533 Date: 2003-09-15T17:03:04+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > And that, I think, is a key difference between the C++ design > > philosophy and the Ada philosophy. > > This is preposterous. Your argument is exactly the equivalent of > saying that since stringing together a sequence of arbitrary > procedure calls is going to produce a garbage program then > procedure calls should be banned. Hmm. I don't see how that conclusion follows from what I said. I simply said that Ada takes a much more cautious approach to implementing stuff than C++ does, which is partly why they have different features. > Really, such desperation. Surely you agree there can be different levels of caution in language design? -- -- Stephe