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: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/02/11 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 443171110 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> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Date: 1999-02-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes: > In article , > Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > > > > To me this still looks like an argument against > > standardization of functions. If you don't get any > > advantages by standardization, why bother? > > VERY muddled thinking. Your argument goes like this > > Dewar does not think sort should be standardized. > > Sort is a function > > Therefore Dewar does not think functions should be > standardized. I am glad to hear that you have nothing against standardization of functions in general. However, I assumed that the original poster used sort as an *example* of how easy it is to use the standard C++ library. I assume we then agree that C++ with its new standard library is better than C++ without the same library, or am I jumping to conclusions again? > > Well, a classical example of a faulty syllogism. I will > add it to my set of such examples for teaching! > Always glad to be of service. > In fact of course I think it is very important to > standardize library functions. I think for example that > it is horrible that C++ has no standardized functions for > dealing with concurrency or with interfacing to other > languages. > 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? :-) > Of course I could play the game of writing a five line > Ada program that cannot be duplicated in standard C++ using > either of these features, but that would prove nothing of > itself. > > Everyone agrees that a certain minimum set of libraries > should be part of a language standard. The issue for a > particular functionality here is what status it should > have: > > 1. Be part of the primary standard > 2. Be part of a secondary standard > 3. Not be standardized > > No one is so foolish as to think that every possible > function should be standardized. I do not make the mistake > of assuming that since Ole-Hjalmar thinks that sorting > should be in category 1, it means that he thinks this! > > So the issue is not one of general principles here AT ALL. > It is a detailed discussion of which category a particular > functionality falls into. I never once mentioned sort. What I was talking about should be clear from the following: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes: > In article , > Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 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. > > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Yes. And from this I infer that you think that any standardization of libraries, or even built-in functions are a waste of time? No, the point is that C++ has recently take a major step forward with the acceptance of a standard library which is rather comprehensive and has a sound foundation. Arguing that this is not needed in Ada is not going to convince anyone to use Ada. > > The C++ and Ada standards both made decisions in this area, > quite different sets of decisions, which leave different > sets of functionality in the standard. I happen to think > that in general Ada made the better set of choices here, > but general claims like this are not really usefull > arguable anyway, so may as well be left moot. > Yes, certainly which set of functions to include depends on what kind of applications you foresee. > > What is productive is to argue about specific cases. > The interesting thing is that Ole-Hjalmar in this exchange > has not given even a single reason why sort in particular > should be standardized. > No. Why should I? I was not discussing sort at all. But if you want an argument, I'll give you one: For the majority of C++ applications it does not matter how sort is implemented, as long as it's a reasonable algorithm. If it *does* matter, write your own, or use another library which includes precisely the sort you need. But having a sort available is very nice if it works with the data structures you are using. > Merely showing an example that says > > 1) if X is standardized, then we will be able to write a > short standard program performing function X > > is not any kind of argument at all, you might equally well > argue for the inclusion of a special function for > converting HTML files to postscript ("look how short this > standard program for converting HTML to postscript is, bet > you can't do that in language X!") > No. I have argued for the standardization of a richer set of generally useful functions and data structures which fit together. The STL library is an example of such a set. I also never argued that C++ is better than Ada. > On the other hand, some cogent arguments for NOT > standardizing sort have been presented. Certainly no one > writing Ada programs has to rewrite a sort algorithm from > scratch. There is a large library of standard sort routines > to choose from, and you choose the one that fits your needs > best. > Yes. But are those libraries always available on all platforms? If they are not, it becomes tempting to write your own portable version, something I would rather avoid. Also, does this library sort work with my container classes, which I have included from another library? > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own -- E pluribus Unix