Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:02:07 -0500, J Kimball wrote:

> On 03/26/2014 03:17 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Stoik wrote:
>>
>>> I think that even a casual user of Ada should be able to influence somehow
>>> the new version of Ada. I wonder what is high on your list of wishes for
>>> Ada 202X?
>>
>> No. Casual users have casual ideas. Ada already suffered too much from
>> casual additions.
> 
> Casual users may also not be content with the status quo and may be
> spending their non-casual time keeping up with advances in programming
> language design that could benefit the language where a non-casual user
> may not have any additional time—of no fault of his own, of course.

Casual language/compiler designers? I don't believe such exist.

>>> I suspect many of the proposals could be tested in GNAT before being
>>> introduced (or rejected) in the new version. One could add a switch to
>>> GNAT indicating that we want to use some of the experimental features.
>>
>> Yes, an experimental sandbox is a good idea. However, better would be a
>> compiler from a generalized and simpler language with Ada type system
>> implemented as a library. Most of Ada complexity is due to irregularities
>> and weaknesses of its type system.
> 
> A casual user may avoid Ada, never becoming a non-casual user when he
> encounters these irregularities becoming disenchanted.

Language preferences is a mystery. I don't think people choose languages
very rationally, even those who chose Ada.

> The wishlist should
> include ameliorating these irregularities, strengthen the type system and
> maybe introduce some of the fancy types that academics are using to
> enforce correctness.

Yes, that is on the top of my personal list. However people understand
different things under correctness. For example to me dynamic checks are
opposite to correctness. How do you reconcile wishes to expand dynamic
checks with wishes removing those altogether, in one list?

> I have recognized your very conservative approach to changes in Ada over
> time.

I thought I was considered a rabid radical here. My approach would be to
rework language foundations keeping the facade intact. Is that
conservative?

> Do you just want a language that suits Dmitry only or something that
> may grow interest in the language?

I am software designer, I am interested in a language that helps me with my
work.

Popularity is another thing. If you believe that Ada could gain popularity
by making the language worse. Well, it is true that only a very bad
language could become very popular. But poor quality alone does not
guaranty the result. For example, Ada 2012 became definitely worse but
barely more popular. It was not ingeniously bad.

> Of all the sugar that was added in
> 2012, not much of it is going to convince anyone to pick up Ada.

Yep, nobody is satisfied.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de