Re: Ada programmers: Edward Fish - interview

[Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:02:47 PM UTC-5, Optikos wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:41:06 PM UTC-5, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 12:52:46 PM UTC-6, Optikos wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > 
> > > > So, obviously, the idea isn't new — this invites some questions though:
> > > >  (a) why didn't any of these take off?
> > > 
> > > Two-level grammars did not take off because they incompletely capture the entire semantic meaning of the AARM.
> > 
> > The semantic meaning is the interesting part; arguably the only part that matters — especially as I am of the opinion that text-based source-programs are absolutely the wrong way to address programming.
> > 
> > As I envision a whole tool-suite for Ada, it's not text that should be the "lingua franca", but rather a structured and meaningful form. (eg the intermediate representation.) -- but Byron needn't go that far, as I doubt many people would *want* to get in on a whole Integrated Development Environment.
> > 
> > I get a bit of intuitive feel that limiting the scope of the Byron project to the role of "compiler" (albeit keeping things 'open'/modular enough that it could be used in a real IDE) would invite more people being willing to contribute.
> > 
> > > >  (b) what difficulties did they encounter that may still be extant?
> > > 
> > > Two-level grammars are unnatural for human beings to think in.  Other approaches such as Z/Zed travel a different avenue.  Other avenues might exist too.
> > 
> > Perhaps the problem is being tied to text and textual modes of thought, as the term 'grammar' indicates, there is a great deal invested into treating programming languages in a textual-linguistic sense.
> > 
> > > >  (c) how much work would it be to build on any of these as opposed to all-new development?
> > > 
> > > Much effort.  But then again, GNAT expended an immense amount of effort doing it twice:
> > > 1) one transliteration of the prose into an Ada-centric semantically-annotated syntax tree written in Ada language
> > > then once again:
> > > 2) one transliteration of the Ada-centric semantically-annotated syntax tree tree-transducer into C/C++-centric semantically-annotated tree written in C.
> > > 
> > > It seems that human beings manually transliterating the AARM twice is once too many.
> > 
> > A while back, someone mentioned taking a look at "Alphard: Form and Content" --
> > http://libgen.io/search.php?req=978-1-4612-5979-4&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def / https://d-m.bksdl.xyz/download/book/5c63f88850b4253978a11370 -- I haven't had a chance to but according to wikipwdia it seems interesting/intriguing and may have some applicability here:
> > "Its main innovative feature was the introduction of the 'form' datatype, which combines a specification
> > and a procedural (executable) implementation. It also took the generator from IPL-V, as well as the
> > mapping functions from Lisp and made it general case."
> 
> That was I.  Alphard and Seed7 both are inspirations for what could be Low Ada:  an Ada-esque language in which normal ISO8652 (High) Ada could be implemented as merely one instance of a new family of Ada-variant languages under the Adang umbrella.  Adang = Ada next generation.  The adangs would be the Adang family of languages that prune out something from the Low Ada implementation to then build out something new-era Ada-embracing modern post-Adaisms.  Each adang would jettison one musty crusty Ada83 axiom to permit one of the adangs to explore new programmer-usability territory that is curtailed/squelched in today's ISO8652 (High) Ada.  For example,
> 1) One of the adangs would jettison Algol-PL/I-Pascal begin-end syntax for the prevailing “familiarity” of C-family {} cryptosymbol syntax.
> 2) One of the adangs would jettison various 1970s Ichbiah-era Ada83isms whose time came & went that are standing in the way of the ARG's various AIs.
> 3) One of the adangs would jettison backwards-compatibility cruft that built up (e.g., all the less-than-stellar string representations) to impose the one true modern wise way on those topics.
> 4) One of the adangs would jettison ISO8652 Ada's lifetime management, embracing one or more other lifetime management schemes (e.g., Rust's borrow checker).
> 5) As 2 or more adangs achieve their goals successfully, a separate blend adang could integrate their disparate wisdom into an even bigger better adang that is the offspring of those 2 or more parent adangs (as survival of the fittest).
> 6) and so forth, but all of the adangs (and also ISO8652-compliant High Ada) would be implemented in terms of Low Ada, which might be its own textual language and/or which might be its own stage of code generator in a multistage code-generation of the adang family of languages, squirting out a different adang or High Ada depending on how Low Ada was tuned.  Please see MetaOCaml for more regarding N-stange multistage programming of code generators of ... of code generators.

7) One of the adangs would jettison Algol-PL/I-Pascal BEGIN-END and LOOP syntaxes for the prevailing ML-family LET-IN syntax and tail-recursion semantics to explore Ada fully embracing every feature in the functional-programming paradigm.