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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,edafb2ab7e8839bc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "KE" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Char type verification Date: 17 Nov 2006 07:33:08 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1163777588.040478.79300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1163628033.606530.190550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1163627827.1632.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1163632532.101867.123200@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <455cf4f8$0$17901$426a74cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.174.106.46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1163777593 23010 127.0.0.1 (17 Nov 2006 15:33:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.174.106.46; posting-account=SU8_Kw0AAABcLlEzcdMhoDhwaHkS8xUq Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7530 Date: 2006-11-17T07:33:08-08:00 List-Id: Thanks everyone. Just to settle this once and for all, let me clarify what was on my mind. -- For those who are still curious about this thread (and I believe they shouldn't be since there's not much to see here folks, move on), let me explain what I did. (Had some of you not read too much into my post, it would have been obvious from the start, but "obvious" is Latin for "overlooked.") I just threw a quick and dirty example involving a very simple operation (verifying a property, a letter's case) combined with some not-so-transparent calculation (using modulo to locate an index) combined with a common technique known for its usefulness (table lookup). It shouldn't have mattered as I was neither after a language war nor intended to insult my fellow programmers with any arrogant and blind belief in this or that language. Nor was I trying to learn any specific "features." Rather, I was (and am) trying to learn the LANGUAGE. Here's an analogy to clarify that last point. Suppose you want to learn a foreign language, say Dutch. Now the worst way to start would be to pick up a grammar book. To be sure, the grammar book can - and will - be useful all along, but only as a *reference.* An equally naive method would be to pick up a comprehensive dictionary and start from letter A. Again, the dictionary will be your friend all along, but there's not much there other than just columns of words. The sensible first step is to buy a "teach yourself" book or to get enrolled in a course. So far so good. But still, textbooks will also get you only so far and no further. Sooner or later, you'll reach that stage which most language learners dread: you'll have to pick up material actually written in that language - newspapers, magazines, books, etc. - and start reading them. Even worse, you'll be asked to speak and write, preferably with/to someone whose native tongue is Dutch. I wanted to see how Ada programmers with experience would approach a simple, quick-and-dirty problem. It shouldn't be too difficult to imagine that even for seemingly simple problems there are at least two - and frequently more - solutions. Another analogy: In a plastic arts academy, for instance, they throw simple challenges at students to force them to think, to be inventive, to look at objects differently. Even with your run-o-the-mill "nude" model, there are umpteen ways of dealing with the figure. I wanted to see how many different ideas you would suggest, how many "aspects" of the problem you'd layer out and try to generalize, how many "idiomatic" ways of coding would emerge. Should I have challenged you to write the some avionics modules of the new F-22 fighter? I don't even know a thing about avionics, other than that it's a neologism. (I mean the word.) As Chancey Gardener from 'Being There' would say for "making a claim" (after being asked repeatedly if he'll "make" one), "I don't even know what they [those "avionic" thingies] look like." Between you and me, I only know... ehm, "catatonics." The challenge was purposefully simple and messy so that you didn't get bogged down with the theoretical intricacies of a major one. I guess this is not the way people use comp.lang.ada. Which is why I dropped a resentful - and regrettably not too gallant - closing note. -- This should settle this as I did not intend the thread to be much ado about nothing. Thanks for reading. Good luck -- KE P.S. Jeff, I'd rather you not share your wisdom on my final words. You're obviously too smart or experienced for me to handle. If this thread looked like a total waste of your time from the beginning, then why drop 4-5 long posts on how silly it is?