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: 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 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 444515392 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: fwall.clustra.com References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> <77t3ld$nou$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79ce4s$lfq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79chc7$ko6@drn.newsguy.com> <79dodb$rhf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fm3e$ffs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79oj6d$eg8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79s23i$ena$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7a1dan$5bu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes: > In article , > Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > > There are indeed many horrible aspects of the C++ > > language. But there are thread libraries freely > > available. It should not matter that they are not part of > > the standard, right? :-) > > It matters very much, and your reply here clearly shows > that you have not spent much time trying to write portable > multi-threaded programs in C++. There are two primary > problems. > > 1. There *are* no portable standardized threads packages. > Pthreads is an attempt, but it leaves many important > details implementation dependent, and in any case, there > are very few implementations that are 100% compliant to the > IEEE standard. > > 2. Since threading is not part of the language, you have > no idea what will and what will not work in the presence > of threads, even a basic construct like X++ whose meaning > is clear in the base language becomes unclear in the > presence of threading (there are at least two possible > formal semantics in this case). THe problem of which > "standard" routines are or are not thread safe is a > particularly severe one. > > So it does indeed matter very much whether functions are > standardized, and each function must be argued carefully > on its merits to see whether or not it should be included > in the standard. > > I know you used :-) above, but still, the comment once > again seems to say: > Perhaps. But I never said that. > Dewar thinks it is fine for sort not to be standardized > but rather to be freely available. > > Sort is a function > > Therefore Dewar thinks this is fine for all functions. > > Please try to construct your syllogisms more carefully! > > P.S. I suggest you quote more selectively, it is very hard > to find your replies buried in mounds of quoted material. > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own And it is very hard to have a discussion with you when you remove that much of the context from previous postings. I assume we are in agreement for the parts of my last post that you did not comment upon. -- E pluribus Unix