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: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <1169588206.234714.312650@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <T7mdnTQ-XfZMFCvYnZ2dnUVZ8tDinZ2d@bt.com>
 <1169624573.534128.172610@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
 <3CLth.75328$wP1.8787@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
 <1169684558.876074.40530@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
 <PLXth.22656$yC5.717@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epa18r$2h8$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:36:02 +0100
Message-ID: <y2ps92brx9.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A7rodbNM2ihN26TnTri1BIuktqo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.249.33
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1169767884 88.72.249.33 (26 Jan 2007 00:31:24 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8578
Date: 2007-01-26T00:36:02+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com> writes:

> adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> I have not read Christopher Grein's paper, and from what I know
>> of C++ and C++ templates, I am skeptical of the notion of it being
>> compile-time safe under any circumstances.
>
> What is there in C++ templates that makes them unsafe?

Yes, the "under any circumstance" makes me rather
suspicious. Overgeneralizing? There might be (indeed are) good reasons
for disliking C++ templates but that statement, I think, will not hold
under examanation as a sufficient one.

>
>> C++ templates do allow more complex variations on genericity,
>> and that does not contribute to type-safe software.
>
> Could you elaborate on this?
> Do you mean that expressiveness and flexibility go against type-safety?

'adaworks' has already suggested that Java is not type safe. I fear he
does not agree with my definition of type safe.

Regards -- Markus