Re: Teaching C/C++ from Ada perspective?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-5, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> > The (unacceptable) corollary to C++11's “as-if” rule as stated:
> > As long as any portion of a program that has even one undefined behavior, the •visible effects• can be
> > anything (on the current target ISA, even if the undefined behavior is quite reliably deterministic &
> > useful on the current target ISA).
> 
> And this is where you contradict yourself. If a) all C++ is one big undefined behavior and b) thus the
> visible effects can be anything, then the implementation can behave like R1000 [*], which contradicts
> your statement that it cannot be done.

If C++ is one big undefined behavior, and thus visible effects can be anything, then C++ can behave as if it is a million monkeys banging on typewriter keyboards accidentally writing the works of Shakespeare (or better yet, a non-troller-fisherman response from you).

I never said that all of C++ is one big undefined behavior.  I effectively said that C++ is uncouth enough in numerous enough places to be a long-horned bull in a densely-stocked china-porcelain shop, ruining all attempts to elevate software engineering to the level that R1000 achieved by cohesive integration.  C++ has dragged down GNAT.  C++ has thus dragged down our entire industry.  A bull in a china shop won't accidentally bang out the works of Shakespeare on a million typewriter keyboards.

> [*] The problem is - apparently nobody wants it.

If no one wants it, then why is it still for sale all these decades later by the company that bought IBM's Rational compiler intellectual property?  And why do they have paying customers who buy it?

> > When the •absence of evidence• is in Ada's favor (in the prior quote before “vis a vis”), then the
> > speaker is an ignorant-of-“fundamental-logic” dolt. 
> >
> > When the •absence of evidence• is in C++'s favor (in this quote after “vis a vis”), then it is the paragon
> > of universal-generalization from which vast one-size-fits-all wisdom shall be harvested & weaponized
> > (to kill off any virtues of R1000 and to kill off teaching C++ in an Ada-esque way). 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I got completely lost in your convoluted elaboration on this matter.
> Let's make this discussion more concrete again (if it ever was): can you show a short (that is, practical for the discussion group) code example that demonstrates your point (whatever it is)?

Your “fundamental logic” insult of me above was not in code; it was in the English prose that you yourself wrote that I then merely quoted back to you.  Now I am to write up a program that insults myself the way you did, just so that you can see it (because you have can't or won't read the English prose that you yourself wrote)?