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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny06.POSTED!0f19ed38!not-for-mail From: "Frank J. Lhota" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng 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> Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:46:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.218.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: trndny06 1111592799 151.203.218.185 (Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:46:39 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:46:39 EST Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9805 comp.lang.c++:46837 comp.realtime:1618 comp.software-eng:5218 Date: 2005-03-23T15:46:39+00:00 List-Id: "bjarne" wrote in message news:1111586894.547988.175600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > The Algol I was talking about in that context was Algol68. Sorry for the confustion. I had assumed that the term Algol would universally be interpreped as Algol68. Clearly this assumption was wrong, and I should have added the "68" suffix to clarify the matter. > The result > would have been a more flexible and efficient language than Simula67 > and a cleaner language than C++ became. 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. Having no Simula67 experience, and no readily available way to get such experience, I cannot comment on the merits of that language. My exposure to Algol, however, leads me to believe that it would make an excellent foundation for a modern OO language. I understand that "Algol68 with classes" would have virtually no chance of succeeding, although I find the lack of viability of such a beautiful langage lamentable. > If you want to understand how and why C++ was done, have a look at > Stroustrup: "The Design and Evolution of C++" (Addison-Wesley). 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 have read the book, and I can recommend it highly. > 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, > 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