Re: is Ada dying?

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On 28 Oct 2001, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <3BDBC0DC.5080005@mail.com>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> > James Rogers wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. Let's all use a language with common constructs like the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> float (*(*f)())();
> >>
> >> This is "simple" C syntax for a pointer to a function returning a
> >> pointer to a function returning a float.
> >
> >
> > I could go "nyah nyah" and point out that until Ada 95 came along,
> > Ada didn't have pointers to functions. And functions returning
> > pointers to functions aren't all that common, so you don't see too
> > many declarations like that in typical C or C++ code.
>
> If they aren't that common, it shouldn't have mattered that Ada83
> did not have them.

He said "functions returning pointers to functions" aren't all that
common. Ada 83 didn't have "pointers to functions". Those quoted strings
aren't equal. Pointers to functions are pretty common, though less so in
languages that are object obsessed.

In many modern, high level languages (neither C++ nor Ada is in that set)
the notion of pointer to function is low level, but functions themselves
are first class. When combined with block structure and lexical scope
this is a very powerful abstraction mechanism.

> If they aren't that common, that should _increase_ the need for
> clarity.

Well, no one in the C world defends the declaration syntax. Hysterical
raisins and all that...

-- Brian