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-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!teaser.fr!news.wanadoo.fr!news.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail Sender: obry@PASCAL Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <42309456$1@news.broadpark.no> From: Pascal Obry Date: 10 Mar 2005 22:18:52 +0100 Message-ID: Organization: Home - http://www.obry.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2005 22:18:56 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.120.24.2 X-Trace: 1110489536 news.wanadoo.fr 11692 82.120.24.2:4978 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9059 comp.lang.c++:45006 comp.realtime:1214 comp.software-eng:4782 Date: 2005-03-10T22:18:56+01:00 List-Id: "xpyttl" writes: > There are obviously two groups here. First, there are the Ada guys who seem > to think that modern C++ is the same language Dennis Ritchie invented 30 > years ago. Then there are the C++ guys who view Ada as a sort of military > style Cobol. > > The two camps are equally close to the truth. Right, both statements are certainly wrong. Yet, Preben point was that Ada has been designed from the start to be safe were C++ was not. As many have pointed out there is different C++, one based on templates, STL... and is safer... but yet a programmer is a programmer. What we are saying on the Ada side is that at some point you'll exit the safe side for some reasons (I'm sure nobody will say this impossible, we are just human) and the compiler will never tell. Code review will certainly help. But again this is costly. Most of us on the Ada side are considering that what is important in a language is not what it permits but what it prohibits for just this reason. We will all step on the wrong side at some point, we want the language and the compiler to be able to warn us. Of course this can look frustrating but it is invaluable in the long run. I can't speak for the whole Ada community, so if you do not share this view, feel free speak up :) Note that it is for this very reason that Java was born (a safer C++). Java has indeed removed lot of unsafe constructs from C++. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.org --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595