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: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@arcor.de>
In-Reply-To: <3oy7ndbh7l.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
	 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
	 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
	 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1170347180.14376.104.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <c364al3hlu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1170363233.23845.118.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <gi8xfho3a0.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1170521693.6067.214.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <eebqkb2efw.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <3oy7ndbh7l.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-Id: <1170683894.12766.40.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:58:14 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:57:30 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2b2e69f5.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=AWKiPF_8N9TU6b:FjPaGjQic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYKc4]oo_^JHYN[W<lHX`=BT\6BhD5G6\i\J@fbI<EJbM^
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8964
Date: 2007-02-05T14:57:30+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 01:06 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote:
> 
> Hi George,

> 
> First you state your dissatisfaction with type inference and the
> typical functional style of programming in highly subjective terms.

I can only speculate on how you can transform what I have written
into what you say I have written. I must try harder to choose my words
carefully. I will provide some simple facts and a frame of reference
for a reasonable discussion of why and when "explicitly referring" (Ada
style) is better than "inferred from context" (FP style). It will take
some time to sort out the arguments in more approachable terms.

The arguments won't stop me from using FP languages. They won't stop
me from arguing about the costly effects of syntax either.

For now:
Since Ada was born out of an attempt to provide a programming language
specifically addressing the needs of production in a large organization
paying attention to syntax vis-a-vis available industry standard
programmers has been an important design goal. Obviously.
I think it still is.

It is therefore necessary to always refer to how a language is
apparently used. Not to how you can use a language.