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!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: 23 Mar 2005 09:45:06 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1110288473.850146@athnrd02> <1110326720.837893@athnrd02> <9lK%d.186$FN4.48@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1111586894.547988.175600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1111589108 28184 192.74.137.71 (23 Mar 2005 14:45:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:45:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9801 comp.lang.c++:46822 comp.realtime:1617 comp.software-eng:5217 Date: 2005-03-23T09:45:06-05:00 List-Id: "bjarne" writes: > Robert A Duff wrote: > > "Frank J. Lhota" writes: > > > > > wrote in message > > > news:9lK%d.186$FN4.48@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > > > And that is the unfortunate aspect of the language: its > foundation on C. > > > > > > > > I once heard Stroustrup confess that, if he had had his druthers, > he would > > > > not have started with C as the seed language. > > > > > > Stroustrup said in an interview that his preference would have been > Algol > > > with classes. > > > > Hmm... Isn't that language called Simula 67? ;-) > > > > > I think that I probably would have preferred that as well! > > > > - Bob > > The Algol I was talking about in that context was Algol68. OK, fair enough. I *did* put a smiley there! >...The result > would have been a more flexible and efficient language than Simula67 > and a cleaner language than C++ became. I agree. >... Unfortunately, there was no > chance of such a language succeeding at that time and place - the > understanding of the basic concepts among the intended users and the > infrastructure needed to get work done were missing. It would have been > yet another beautiful, but stillborn, language. C++ was designed in > response to pressing problems, not as a 10-year project aimed at > abstract beauty. I think that in the long run, it actually gained from > that. > > If you want to understand how and why C++ was done, have a look at > Stroustrup: "The Design and Evolution of C++" (Addison-Wesley). I've read it. (And enjoyed it very much!) >... If > nothing else, it might help you to avoid revisionist history and wild > conjecture. I think that documenting decisions about major tools is > important and should not be confused with "confessions". I apologize for what might seem like "wild conjecture". That wasn't my intent -- I was just making a silly joke based on the phrase "Algol with classes". Sorry. > I chose C as a base for C++ because - among the many languages I knew > of - it was the one that came closest to my needs. It wasn't perfect > and C compatibility became a bigger problem than I had bargained for, As one of the designers of Ada 95, I know very well what it is like to design a language when compatibility is a constraint. > but noone "forced me" (as is conjectured, incl. in this thread). > > And no, C++ was never meant solely for object-oriented programming > (when defined as programming using class hierarchies). Support for data > abstraction and procedural programming was mentioned in my earliest > papers, and a 1981 paper grapples (rather unsuccessfully) with the > basics of generic programming. > > -- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs - Bob