Re: ada without ada libraries?

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

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:55:08 +0100, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:34:45 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> No, the point is not to re-implement LISP, bash, perl, you name it, in  
>> Ada. The point is to throw it away. The advantage of using Ada is Ada itself.
> 
> Such an assertion seems silly to me (with apologize).

Did you program something substantial in bash? (:-))

Again, the point is, that even if you believe that something is throw-away
and run-once enough to be written in something as disgusting as any popular
scripting language is, it would be an error to follow your belief.

You are not alone. I myself keep on repeating this kind of error being too
lazy to create a *.gpr file, to write the main procedure, to add Glib stuff
for spawning child processes, etc, resorting to bash and losing far more
than wining in the end.

> No language at all,  
> not even Ada, could be an universal model for everything.

Since when a language became a model?

> There are place  
> for numerous DSL (read Domain Specific Language),

I don't know how many such languages you know. My job is in particular to
deal with them and sometimes to design them. I know lots of them, far more
I wished to. The world would be a much better place without any of them.

If you want to be serious in pushing your argument, you have to show how
and why the domain's specific fails to fit into a strongly typed,
imperative, OO framework.

The only debatable position here is actually declarative vs. imperative.
But it won't fly with scripting languages anyway.

> and some scripting  
> languages, like LISP or derivatives, or logic programming languages, are a  
> kind of.

... mess.

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