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: 103376,54c513170bafd693
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Desirability of C++
Date: 2000/04/30
Message-ID: <yecln1ulsy9.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617745815
Sender: kst@king.cts.com
References: <01HW.B4BFC2820005B06B08A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <20000204073443.24976.00001288@ng-ci1.aol.com>
   <87euk0$c93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002040920070.2217-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
   <01HW.B4C1346100072D2408A24140@news.pacbell.net>
 <949867976.281549@the-rowan.albatross.co.nz>
   <8766v93w66.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
 <F721B334E5BE49E3.6D9E1F7A7C81C3CE.9B64FD843F046A46@lp.airnews.net>
   <sc336dpgee6168@corp.supernews.com> <38E8C81A.AA62CF4C@HiWAAY.net>
   <hoffman-ya02408000R1204002048410001@news.insync.net>
 <7EA1B852F5D4D8C6.26EEE9181C80F0DF.0161EA2D9C353253@lp.airnews.net>
   <01HW.B51C1B6E00F41C2D04BB51B0@news.pacbell.net>
 <38F796B2.A99A206A@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>   <38F7A27A.4F7729FA@raytheon.com>
 <8eclae$afj$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
 <4F706057FEE2A550.BF5FE19AE279EFCD.A55706B3F9D07043@lp.airnews.net>
 <8eiv08$820$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <390D001C.7433140B@netwood.net>
X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 957160239 65756 205.163.0.22 (1 May 2000 05:50:38 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com
Date: 2000-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin@netwood.net> writes:
[...]
> Of course, C++ in its present form cannot be the final answer.
> Perhaps it can evolve into a more robust language
> which supports all of the safety features of Ada.
> Stronger type checking
> and support for concurrent programming
> might be a good place to start.

I don't believe C++ can be made significantly more robust without
breaking backward compatibility, either with the current version of
C++ or with C.  (C++'s near backward compatibility with C is one of
its biggest selling points.)  It would be possible to add new features
that make it easier to write safe code, but any change that breaks
existing (unsafe) code would be politically impossible.

It would be possible to create a new language with Ada's robustness
that looks more like C and/or C++.  (Java might be a step in that
direction, but I don't know it well enough to judge that.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.