Re: What's stopping you from using Ada for your next commercial project?

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:38:25 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:35:06 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> There will be other algorithms if the paradigm really change.
>>
>>> I tried to look at some “tutorials” last year (ouch, and they dare to  
>>> name
>>> this, “tutorials”!)… I gave up.
>>
>> New concepts are difficult to gasp. Someone posted a link to an article
>> about a Lisp clone proposed! (:-))
>>
>>> Two-states based computer are light years simpler than that.
>>
>> Proponents of abacus would say same about modern computers.

> Don't know that Abacus,

Oh, you certainly do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus

> will search the web about it. I though “seems  
> there is no elementary component, looks likes everything is a big complex  
> system which cannot be broken down to be understood”.

"Understood in terms of Boolean logic," you mean. That's the point, a
really new paradigm cannot be understood in terms of the old one. That is
why it is new. In particular the probability cannot described in crisp
terms. So any attempt to "understand" it that way, e.g. the theory of
hidden parameter, is doomed.

> But there will still be troubles about what to do with all of these  
> nowadays computer (even sadly famous Africa's bin will not be big enough).

What happened with the horses when cars came? Who cares?
  
>> Language is not a physical system. You can change anything you wanted, you
>> just have to wish it.
> Life is not a physical system neither, its only based on a physical  
> system. So I maintain ability of life to face an environment and ability  
> of a language paradigm to face an environment, are comparable. If you are  
> interested in the topic, you should know what life is, could be expressed  
> in some other abstract ways, getting ride of carbon and water. The  
> physical system is just the starting point, this does characterize the  
> system, which is abstract.

So? It seems that your argument would be that given the knowledge of the
human DNA code, one couldn't produce a human being 100 million years ago by
means of genetic engineering? Rubbish.

>>> Could you tell more about “keeping it backward compatible is only possible
>>> by a big structural change” ?
>>
>> Per generalization: you express obsolete features in terms of new ones.
> That would mean to keep the syntax and the same meaning assigned to  
> existing syntactic construct and redefine the core concepts of the  
> language only ?

Yes. There is nothing wrong with the most of Ada. Even if some parts are
wrong, like limited results/aggregates are. That is no problem. In the new
language limitness will be redesigned anyway. You will rather have
independent type properties "by-reference," "no-copy-constructor,"
"no-assignment." Ada's "limited" will be expressed in those terms.
Aggregates will become syntax sugar for user-defined constructors.
Obsolescent "limited" types will have them predefined. etc. Not a big deal.

> I feel this may be feasible with greater separation of both.

There is no clear margin. Just move the stuff to the ARM's section J.

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