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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@maestro.clustra.com>
Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
Date: 1999/02/10
Message-ID: <umq679aegyo.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 442741500
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: fwall.clustra.com
References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net>
 <tz5n2.4608$TO5.129375@ptah.visi.com> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se>
 <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com>
 <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <m3ww2mgzmj.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <77t3ld$nou$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <79ce4s$lfq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79chc7$ko6@drn.newsguy.com>
 <79dodb$rhf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <umqbtj9m636.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
 <79fm3e$ffs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <umq679g45y3.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
 <EACHUS.99Feb8141309@spectre.mitre.org> <79oj6d$eg8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java
X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no
Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes:

> In article <EACHUS.99Feb8141309@spectre.mitre.org>,
>   eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
> > In article <umq679g45y3.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
> > Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@maestro.clustra.com> writes:
> >
> >  > Yes. And from this I infer that you think that any
> >  > standardization of
> >  > libraries, or even built-in functions are a waste of
> >  > time?
> 
> Your inference engine is broken, I never even vaguely
> said or think any such thing!
> 

Well, the exchange which led to my comment was this:

<start of quote>

In article <umqbtj9m636.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>,
  Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@maestro.clustra.com> wrote:
> But the point you seem to be missing is that this libarry
> now is a *standard* part of C++.


Yes, and the sort operator is a part of the standard
language in the case of APL.

So if C++ is better than Ada because the standard library
has a sort built in, and therefore allows a shorter sorting
routine, by the same argument APL must be even better than
C++, since the sorting is even more built in, and we can
get an even shorter sorting routine.

<end of quote>

To me this still looks like an argument against standardization of
functions.
If you don't get any advantages by standardization, why bother?

-- 
E pluribus Unix