www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Ada gems

reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
Just a bunch of links:

http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still be 
offered:

http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
eles:

 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still 
 be offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/
Two nice ones: http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-24/ http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/gem-140-bridging-the-endianness-gap/ Bye, bearophile
Oct 14 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still 
 be offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/
Hijack, also OT: using C++ without memory management http://engineering.adap.tv/listing/why-we-use-c-without-using-stl-or-boost/
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C. I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this thing is actually supposed to do."
Oct 14 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C. I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this thing is actually supposed to do."
Actually I prefer, "I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages like Java. These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to use c++, it feels painfully dated. At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it feels like it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of the language features of newer/more modern languages. The new concurrency stuff in particular is just plain unseemly. Also, a relatively minor but annoying and long-standing problem with doing anything non-trivial in c++ is the lack of consistency between 3rd party libraries. Java has spoiled me into expecting everything to adhere to one convention, but with a c++ project as soon as you've got more than a few external libraries, you end up with a huge mess of code that doesn't mix properly, and writing adapters for everything to get that consistency is just insane. Long rant short: I'm finding myself using c++ now mainly for: - small bits of functionality to be used via JNI - small stuff mainly focused around one library/task (Qt, pqxx, whatever) Doing anything large and complex with c++ these days just doesn't appeal to me any more. I can build it much faster with java, it'll be more maintainable, and performance wise it's fine for what I do." It reflects quite clearly my work environment since 2005. -- Paulo
Oct 14 2014
next sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C. I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this thing is actually supposed to do."
Actually I prefer, "I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages like Java. These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to use c++, it feels painfully dated. At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it feels like it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of the language features of newer/more modern languages. The new concurrency stuff in particular is just plain unseemly.
Isn't concurrency/parallell stuff coming in C++17? I found the cppcon roundtable on concurrency interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI_0GzLWQ8
Oct 14 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 22:08 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
http://ask-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/04/30/1344224/c-and-the-stl-12-years-later-what-do-you-think-now "I've been using it professionally for 15 years now, and if I observe anything, it's that the longer I use it, the more my stuff looks like C. I keep shaking my head at younger colleagues mis-using templates all over the place ("re-usability!", and hour-long compile times, coupled with really non-obvious implicit conversions and instantiations, never mind the error messages), and object-oriented hierarchies where each object is such a tiny part of the system that you need to remember 10 classes at the same time just to have a slight inkling of what this thing is actually supposed to do."
Actually I prefer, "I used to love c++ and berade people who used wimp languages like Java. These days I mainly use java, and when I do have to use c++, it feels painfully dated. At to C++11, while it added some useful stuff, in general it feels like it's just flailing while trying to bring in some of the language features of newer/more modern languages. The new concurrency stuff in particular is just plain unseemly.
Isn't concurrency/parallell stuff coming in C++17?
I can use other languages *today* or wait until 2020 for C++17 to be available across all major compilers. This assuming that they don't repeat the errors of C++11 in that regard.
 I found the cppcon roundtable on concurrency interesting:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI_0GzLWQ8
I did watch it, had no idea of the current problems with async. -- Paulo
Oct 14 2014
parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 20:47:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 22:08 schrieb "Ola Fosheim 
 =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
 I can use other languages *today* or wait until 2020 for C++17 
 to be available across all major compilers.
IIRC, the standard team said something that for C++17 will be many technical notes that will implement changes available in experimental, thus people should be able to include them in their code. Of course, having the compilers implement those, is another matter. In defense of C++, beyond its C roots & compatibility, it also have been the language that made the mistakes useful for the other languages. That is, Java and C# capitalized on C++'s mistakes by simply not repeating them. Of course, mistakes are obvious only after they are made and, as such, C++ was in the weakest position, just like any pioneer.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
 In defense of C++, beyond its C roots & compatibility, it also 
 have been the language that made the mistakes useful for the 
 other languages. That is, Java and C# capitalized on C++'s 
 mistakes by simply not repeating them. Of course, mistakes are 
 obvious only after they are made and, as such, C++ was in the 
 weakest position, just like any pioneer.
I guess you could say that, but the reality is that C++ has been considered a bad language design from the start in academia. C++ wouldn't have had any chance without full C compatibility. C++ is one more proof that installed based and gradual adoption in combination with supporting "The Next Big Thing" (OO) is the easy path to dominance. You could always defend using C++ by saying that you used it as mostly C with some bells and whistles (such as explicit inlining, overloading, vectors, complex numbers etc), so you did not have to learn C++ to start using it if you knew C. (Objective-C requires much more effort from the programmer) Java primarily capitalized on educational institutions having a positive attitude towards SUN as a company. SUN was run by true engineers. In addition Java was marketed as a language for the web (which was hyped in the mid 90s) so educational institutions got what they wanted: 1. A language that students would be motivated by, being able to run programs in web browsers (which didn't turn out to work very well in reality). It was common for universities to use clean languages that nobody in the real world used. 2. A language that was simple, safe and had a garbage collector and provided all the mechanisms needed to teach CS and OO (Java was as close to Simula as you can get). 3. A language for which many educational books were being written (important when you select a curriculum). Once you get educational institutions to force feed students with a language you win. I am not sure if Java would have survived without it. For some reason Microsoft did not make that strategic move until much later. I think Bill Gates was the reason, MS pushed Visual Basic too much to be taken seriously… So eventually they had to create their own incompatible "Java" (C#) in order to keep collecting Windows-tax in the business environment.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 08:40:04 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
 ...
For some reason Microsoft did not make that strategic move until much later. I think Bill Gates was the reason, MS pushed Visual Basic too much to be taken seriously… So eventually they had to create their own incompatible "Java" (C#) in order to keep collecting Windows-tax in the business environment.
An interesting thing for conspiracy theories is how close the new Window Runtime model is from Ext-VOS. Ext-VOS was the next architecture of COM, based on the idea that all Windows languages would target it, as a common language runtime. Along the way, they decided to create the CLR instead. Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them create the Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code in Windows Phone 8 and create the .NET Native, the ahead-of-time native code compiler for .NET. The main difference with Windows Native Runtime and the old Ext-VOS, is the use .NET metadata instead of COM type libraries. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dsyme/archive/2012/07/05/more-c-net-generics-history-the-msr-white-paper-from-mid-1999.aspx Java might as well have been, what made them move away from the initial design. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 10:32:53 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them 
 create the Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code 
 in Windows Phone 8 and create the .NET Native, the 
 ahead-of-time native code compiler for .NET.
Yes, these moves are interesting to watch. Not sure how it will turn out unless Microsoft truly embrace cross-platform development. On a related note I found these notes on the Go roadmap interesting: http://dotgo.sourcegraph.com/post/99652962343/brad-fitzpatrick-on-the-future-of-the-go-programming Go 1.4: - precise GC for everything - start of Android support Go 1.5: - concurrent GC with marginal pauses (15ms?) - start of iOS support - cache-friendly scheduler ("NUMA") - tracing in browser (Chrome) And people are working on Go->PNACL and Go->Javascript compilers… I haven't really looked much at Go in the past two years, but it looks like D has roughly 18 months to get the GC up to speed or make programming without GC really comfy. At some point quality of implementation, programmer productivity, tools and platform support matters more than semantic details if both language A and B can do roughly the same things. IF the Go developers succeed in reaching their goals, which is a gamble. But neither Google or Microsoft lack resources or the motivation. So it all hangs on project management and strategic thinking I think. :) Competition and choice is a good thing. We'll see.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 16:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 10:32:53 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 Now the going native wave that hit Microsoft, has made them create the
 Windows Runtime, having .NET compile to native code in Windows Phone 8
 and create the .NET Native, the ahead-of-time native code compiler for
 .NET.
Yes, these moves are interesting to watch. Not sure how it will turn out unless Microsoft truly embrace cross-platform development. On a related note I found these notes on the Go roadmap interesting: http://dotgo.sourcegraph.com/post/99652962343/brad-fitzpatrick-on-the-future-of-the-go-programming Go 1.4: - precise GC for everything - start of Android support Go 1.5: - concurrent GC with marginal pauses (15ms?) - start of iOS support - cache-friendly scheduler ("NUMA") - tracing in browser (Chrome) And people are working on Go->PNACL and Go->Javascript compilers…
I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever add generics. So I guess, a better C it is.
 I haven't really looked much at Go in the past two years, but it looks
 like D has roughly 18 months to get the GC up to speed or make
 programming without GC really comfy.

 At some point quality of implementation, programmer productivity, tools
 and platform support matters more than semantic details if both language
 A and B can do roughly the same things.

 IF the Go developers succeed in reaching their goals, which is a gamble.
 But neither Google or Microsoft lack resources or the motivation. So it
 all hangs on project management and strategic thinking I think. :)

 Competition and choice is a good thing. We'll see.
They just got a victory today, as Microsoft is now bringing Docker to Windows, which uses Go quite heavily. Although for the time being they are being silent on what languages will Microsoft be using. Nick Stinemates from Docker https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458382 "As a result, it will be a community/maintainer decision what language it's written in, but obviously we're heavily biased toward Go." -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't 
 ever add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.
It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level language IMO. But templates can always be added later. If Google manage to get a solid GC based runtime up, one might write a new front end for it. Just like people write new languages for JVM. (but it is still a big "if")
 They just got a victory today, as Microsoft is now bringing 
 Docker to Windows, which uses Go quite heavily.
Docker is a nice idea. Not sure where Microsoft is going with it, but they probably go for this to make Azure competitive.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.
It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level language IMO.
I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark. Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable assembler. For everything else, there are better alternatives. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
next sibling parent ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:15:11 +0200
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is=20
 embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable
 assembler.
and it sux as portable assembler.
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at 
 currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and 
 being a portable assembler.

 For everything else, there are better alternatives.
Portable libraries. It is a stable design that most languages can interface with, so you can generally not go wrong by writing libraries in C. It is a pity that some cool libraries are C++ only (like 3D physics), but maybe automatic source-to-source translation can do well sometime in the future.
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles215 gzk.dot> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim 
 =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
 wrote:
 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they 
 won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.
It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level language IMO.
I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark. Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable assembler. For everything else, there are better alternatives.
Still.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCgzYcpFUI Scott Meyers talk
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 20:29 schrieb eles:
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:15:10 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 15.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
 <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 17:10:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I saw that roadmap. It is also the confirmation that they won't ever
 add generics.

 So I guess, a better C it is.
It isn't all that great at the C-stuff, Go is no system level language IMO.
I look at Go and see Oberon, hence my remark. Even if that isn't the case, the only thing C is good at currently is embedded devices low on RAM, device drivers and being a portable assembler. For everything else, there are better alternatives.
Still.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCgzYcpFUI Scott Meyers talk
This is C++, I am speaking about C. C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:50:21 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 This is C++, I am speaking about C.

 C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list.
Scott Meyers pointed out that C is the most popular open source language still (which probably is true if you count lines of code), and that the popularity of C is important for the popularity of C++ today. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
Oct 15 2014
next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 22:00 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 18:50:21 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 This is C++, I am speaking about C.

 C++ is part of my "there are better alternatives" list.
Scott Meyers pointed out that C is the most popular open source language still (which probably is true if you count lines of code), and that the popularity of C is important for the popularity of C++ today. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
Ah ok. Yes, I do have to agree. However that is mostly caused by the animosity in open source world against C++. I can still remember how it was to be on Gtkmm vs Gtk. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
Just for fun, some D tag stats from Stackoverflow for the last 
week:

C++: 2080 this week
Go: 96 this week
Rust: 58 this week
D: 25 this month

Or (roughly):

C++: 357x more questions
Go: 16x
Rust: 10x
Oct 15 2014
parent reply ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:37:19 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 Just for fun, some D tag stats from Stackoverflow for the last=20
 week:
=20
 C++: 2080 this week
 Go: 96 this week
 Rust: 58 this week
 D: 25 this month
=20
 Or (roughly):
=20
 C++: 357x more questions
 Go: 16x
 Rust: 10x
so, c++ is most complicated language, and D is so easy and nice that people don't even asking questions.
Oct 15 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 20:48:21 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
 so, c++ is most complicated language, and D is so easy and nice 
 that people don't even asking questions.
Yeah, top stars on github this month for D: libasync: 22 stars vibe.d: 15 phobos: 10 druntime: 8 dash: 9 For Go: pup: 1243 stars inspeqtor: 856 docker: 743 gopherjs: 659 syncthing: 584 For C++: cool-retro-term: 999 stars node-webkit: 690 CppCon2014: 615 cling: 512 ricochet: 498 On github Go appears to be on the same number of stars as C++ and Python… so I guess this could mean it is popular among hobbyists. Ada projects have no stars...
Oct 15 2014
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 15.10.2014 um 23:13 schrieb "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":
 On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 20:48:21 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:
 .... Ada
projects have no stars...
Who needs stars when working on an enterprise budget? :) Besides, Ada never was an hobbyist language. Only after GNAT Core decided to release their compiler as GPL, universities decided to pay attention. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 21:29:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Who needs stars when working on an enterprise budget? :)
Yeah, these metrics are skewed, but it is interesting to see what kind of projects people get excited about in different languages. I didn't expect Go to do so well on github. I found that surprising.
 Besides, Ada never was an hobbyist language. Only after GNAT 
 Core decided to release their compiler as GPL, universities 
 decided to pay attention.
Ada is "industrial", and comes through as a bit syntax heavy for casual use. Still, the feature set appears to fit well together when reading about it. Go on the other hand comes through as a bit arcane and the defer/panic/recover error handling is kind of weird and the syntax for it does not indicate that it is about errors. Which I think is important to make distinct. So I have trouble liking Go when browsing Go code for the same reason I'd never want to do anything large in C. Then again, it took a while for me to get used to C-style braces after being used to languages like Pascal. So maybe it grows on you… (doubt it). Not that I like regular try/catch exceptions either. A more efficient "transactional" approach to error-handling seems more attractive. A solution where you don't sprinkle error-handling code all over your codebase. It probably requires high-level language support if you want to avoid the extra noise that "plague" current error handling solutions… :-/
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
 consistency between 3rd party libraries. Java has spoiled me
While I agree with all this, I think the reason for Java's developing smoothness is not portability as such, but the unitarity of it. This is exactly how Bjarne puts it: "Java is not portable over platforms, Java is *a platform*." Which is quite true, might it be not interesting for some applications. In a way is just like one would brag about Windows apps portability on the grounds that all operating systems support Virtualbox...
Oct 15 2014
parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 October 2014 at 07:31:45 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 19:49:08 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 14.10.2014 um 17:30 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 14:56:53 UTC, eles wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
 consistency between 3rd party libraries. Java has spoiled me
While I agree with all this, I think the reason for Java's developing smoothness is not portability as such, but the unitarity of it. This is exactly how Bjarne puts it: "Java is not portable over platforms, Java is *a platform*." Which is quite true, might it be not interesting for some applications. In a way is just like one would brag about Windows apps portability on the grounds that all operating systems support Virtualbox...
This is common to any language that offers a rich runtime that abstracts away over OS specific issues, while allowing you to jump into the OS when required to do so. C and C++ fail at this, because C's notion of runtime is called UNIX and C++ followed along, to cater to the same crowd. That standard runtime never managed into the language standard and instead became a standard of its own, POSIX. With the caveat that not every OS out there implements POSIX (there are others besides Windows that don't), and those that do, don't have 100% the same version. This is exactly the reason why C++ standardization group is now trying to get the same form of plaftorm abstractions into the standard, that other languages enjoy. -- Paulo
Oct 15 2014
prev sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.10.2014 um 16:56 schrieb eles:
 On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:52:24 UTC, eles wrote:
 Just a bunch of links:

 http://www.horstpeterhermann.de/ada_related/gems.html

 This one reminded me D, with some hints about what could still be
 offered:

 http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/ada-gem-7/
Hijack, also OT: using C++ without memory management http://engineering.adap.tv/listing/why-we-use-c-without-using-stl-or-boost/
But with buffer overruns and memory corruption. -- Paulo
Oct 14 2014