Re: ada vs. cpp

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@clustra.com>]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> I don't think this would help. Most of the C++/Java guys don't specifically
> hate Ada syntax nearly as much as they hate the strong typing and error
> checking and other semantic features of Ada. They *want* a language that is
> loose. I suppose you could give them a language that is "loose" using Ada
> syntax, but then why bother? It wouldn't be Ada anymore. (They'd still
> object to its wordiness - you'd be better off developing a language where
> every non-alpha character represented some operation or language feature.
> :-)
> 
> As for GC - I'd rather leave that implementation defined. Ada would lose a
> lot of usefulness in embedded/realtime work if it was mandatory that GC be
> in it. As it stands, an implementation *could* provide GC if there was a
> demand for it. So far, most users aren't screaming for it.
> 

I think it should be mandatory in the implementation, but not
mandatory to use. The problem with implementation defined GC is that
you cannot write portable software if you rely on it. I like the
approach taken by Modula-3, where a reference type can be either
traced or untraced in the same program. I cannot see anything in this
approach that would make it impossible to leave out the GC code from
the executable if no traced reference types were used, so there would
be no penalty for having GC in the language if you didn't want to use
it.

Personally, I would not like GC in something even like our soft real
time DBMS kernel(NOT written in Ada, btw), but for things like the
backup/restore server or DB applications it would surely simplify the
programming.


> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Senior Software Engineer
> Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
> Enabling the digital revolution
> e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
> Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/
> 
> 
> "MM@MM" <MM_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > May be what we need is a new language, which has the good stuff
> > of Ada (strong typing, ranges, attributes, separation of interface and
> > implementation, generics, tasks, etc...), but with a more modern OO
> > look and feel (as in Java), maybe even garbage collection thrown in
> > (although I have mixed feeling on GC).  Delphi now comes the
> > closest thing to this (it is sort of Ada like, but also has Java like
> > classes in terms of syntax and feel to it).
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Kabelsalat ist gesund.

Ole-Hj. Kristensen