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,e28ffe0eaf31d1b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ohk@tfdt-o.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen FOU.TD/DELAB) Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ (Ada 0X) Date: 1997/09/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271595334 References: <199709111312.PAA14929@basement.replay.com> Organization: Telenor Online Public Access Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes: > > On 10 Sep 1997 13:28:47 +0200, ohk@tfdt-o.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen > FOU.TD/DELAB) wrote: > > > "James B. White, III (Trey)" writes: > .. > > > Brian Rogoff wrote: > .. > > > If it's supported in the language, it is portable. Before anyone starts > > > slamming the portability of C++ and templates, realize the situation has > > > changed dramatically over the last few months. > > > > > > > Don't bet on that. We still have template classes which are legal C++, > > but which in practice can only be compiled by CenterLine CC (and > > probably other Cfront derivates), but not by g++, and not by Sun CC, > > because of different strategies for instantiating the templates. > > "Legal C++"? Since there is no C++ standard, legal C++ is whatever a > compiler that calls itself a C++ compiler supports. To look at it > another way, every "C++" compiler supports a different language. > Well, that's exactly the problem with C++. Istead of just "legal", I should have said "legal according to the draft ISO standard". > Ada: The only internationally standardized OOP language. > Yes. > > Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 > My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com ) > "English bed-wetting types." > Monty Python & the Holy Grail > > Posted with Spam Hater - see > http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/