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: 103376,1cf653444208df72 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-09 08:06:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.158.233.21!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news1.fra.nextra.com!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail Sender: ohk@gong2.clustra.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp References: <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com> <9puvdc$225$1@nh.pace.co.uk> From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.143.59.98 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 17:06:16 MET DST Organization: Nextra Public Access X-Trace: readme.online.no 1002639976 194.143.59.98 Date: 09 Oct 2001 17:06:16 +0200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14026 Date: 2001-10-09T17:06:16+02:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" 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" 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