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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.50.50.144 with SMTP id c16mr6127858igo.11.1438121487969;
 Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.106.247 with SMTP id e110mr560132qgf.7.1438121487839;
 Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pg9no4874427igb.0!news-out.google.com!4ni82499qgh.1!nntp.google.com!69no2519975qgl.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mp8r8l$fnn$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=81.203.145.32;
 posting-account=AFCLjAoAAABJAOf_HjgEEEi3ty-lG5m2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.203.145.32
References: <e610ca1e-4df6-4fbb-b3a1-ac35694d9072@googlegroups.com>
 <mp645u$abo$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <2df4698f-4c8e-457c-822d-209cb2f8ab5e@googlegroups.com>
 <mp8r8l$fnn$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <014427b1-ff7a-4a69-82e6-0330af77ed96@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?
From: EGarrulo <egarrulo@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:11:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:194410
Date: 2015-07-28T15:11:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:12:54 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "EGarrulo" wrote in message 
> >boilerplate code, and this is one such case.  Let's add the lack of a 
> >facility like "printf",
> 
> Not strongly typed.

What do you mean?  Common Lisp has FORMAT and it is as strongly typed as they can be.

> >along with a generic type system that can't perform basic type inference,
> 
> Would have to weaken the type system.

Do you mean that the compiler is not able to infer the type referenced by the access type in `Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation` because that would weaken the type system?

> > and I am beginning to understand why engineers opposed the adoption of Ada
> > by the US Department of Defense.
> 
> Ada is not for people that want to write quick sloppy code (and then debug 
> it for months).

Wanting to write sloppy code and wanting to write only what is necessary are two different attitudes, don't you agree?

> Besides, the C++ generics that you are implicitly referring 
> to didn't exist until long after Ada was designed. And they do things which 
> would destroy the Ada contract model of generics (in C++, generics are 
> glorified macros).

Ada generics are fine -- I see no difference in expressiveness versus C++, really -- but the standard library doesn't seem to make the most of them.

Generics *are* glorified macros anyway, in a sense.