Re: Ada Successor Language

[Marius Amado-Alves <amado.alves@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 01:10:33 UTC+1, Dan'l Miller  wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 5:36:56 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes:
> > > P.S. Stepanov arguing for generics (templates) claimed that the reason
> > > why C++ needed this mess was impossibility to write Max using dynamic
> > > polymorphism... I believe it is possible to have a language where
> > > generic Max and Swap could be written without generics.
> > 
> > I've been wanting to look up how Ada generics work.  C++ generics are
> > implemented with templates which leads to a horrible mess, but generics
> > themselves don't have to be a mess, as far as I know.
> > 
> > Some comparisons:
> > 
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.122&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> It seems that Ada would score rather well in Table 1 on page 4 had it been included:
> 
> Ada
>  ●   :   multi-type concepts
>  ●   :   multiple constraints
>  ●   :   associated type access
>  ◒   :   constraints on associated types
>  ●   :   type aliases
>  ●   :   separate compilation (exemplary Ada compilers)
>  ●   :   implicit argument deduction

That's exactly why Ada was precluded: it would make Haskell look bad. That or the ignorance of the authors (Ada83 was the 1st standard language with generics). Either way this tells me the paper is trash.