From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:88d:: with SMTP id o13mr9549607itk.29.1556295658020; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5188:: with SMTP id y8mr28882248otg.357.1556295657813; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!136no175350itk.0!news-out.google.com!v189ni123itv.0!nntp.google.com!b2no176232itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:20:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=146.5.2.29; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.5.2.29 References: <0ee94773-9432-4117-ae73-6763347809ea@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <271e5a12-9292-4078-a2b0-7bba666327ae@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada programmers: Edward Fish - interview From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:20:58 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 5476 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3405559131 Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56191 Date: 2019-04-26T09:20:57-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 9:17:34 PM UTC-6, Optikos wrote: > On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 2:47:31 AM UTC-5, Tomek Wa=C5=82kuski wro= te: > > The new interview is up! Enjoy! > >=20 > > https://tomekw.com/ada-programmers-edward-fish/ > >=20 > > The list of all interviews to date can be found here: https://tomekw.co= m/tag/interview/ >=20 > Ed/Shark8, what will it take to resume development of Byron, as mentioned= in this interview? Not much: I need to finish the design document, then review and restructure= /refactor (or rewrite) my archived source to be compliant with the new docu= ment. On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:47:59 PM UTC-6, Optikos wrote: > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:54 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > "Jere" wrote in message=20 > > news:ce96c027-79d6-4185-96ce-95823f637d8f of googlegroups.com... > > ... > > >I'm definitely aware of the HoD and its reputation. I am a bit > > >discourage that there is not any resource (person or written) > > >available to help newcomers (or heck even somewhat experienced > > >Ada programmers) with issues like these. > >=20 > > It takes quite of bit of mental effort for even an ARG member like Tuck= er or=20 > > myself to want to even open 3.10.2. We even have a standing joke about= =20 > > sending in a search party if someone doesn't come back from the trip. > >=20 > > The main problem is that even an experienced hand can get confused by a= ll of=20 > > the rules and special cases, and one minor mistake can snowball into a= =20 > > completely wrong conclusion. It's simply not for the faint of heart. > >=20 > > I suspect that accessibility implemented by compilers is essentially=20 > > whatever the ACATS tests require. I know that I've never spent time on = it in=20 > > Janus/Ada beyond that -- it simply isn't worth self-inflicted pain. Thu= s, my=20 > > advice is that accessibility works like one would expect in basic cases= , and=20 > > do not go beyond basic cases unless you like pain. > >=20 > > Randy. >=20 > It sure seems like this is a problem: when the language definition is so= complex in English prose that even standardization-committee members and c= ompiler-authors have immense difficulty utilizing it, then perhaps that is = an A#1 indicator that English prose is itself the problem. Perhaps Algol68= 's two-level grammar (or analogous different programmatically-readable spec= ification 51 years later) specifying the rich semantic behavior as mapped i= nto syntax was a step in the right direction after all, despite blowing eve= ryone's minds at the time 51 years ago. >=20 > Although Ada's primary problem is lack of equal-sized* or greater-sized* = competitor to GNAT, Ada's second-most problem is a specification that is in= natural-language prose. >=20 > * as measured by mindshare in the marketplace >=20 > Ed/Shark8, this is the niche for Byron to chart new territory (as a 2019 = total rethink of what the two-level grammar tried to do in Algol68) to make= a major contribution. There's [most of] a W-Grammar for Ada83, here: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/c= itations/ADA177802 A purported Semanol [Semantics Oriented Language] specification here: https= ://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA091682 In addition to these, there's a paper on incremental static semantic analys= is here: https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA604432 So, obviously, the idea isn't new =E2=80=94 this invites some questions tho= ugh: (a) why didn't any of these take off? (b) what difficulties did they encounter that may still be extant? (c) how much work would it be to build on any of these as opposed to all-n= ew development? (d) what impacts would later standards (95, 2005, 2012, 2020) have on both= the extant work as well as the ability for the underlying designs to addre= ss it? (e) are there modern techniques that would work better? [Note: "newer" =E2= =89=A0 "better".] (f) what *is* the best way to engineer/design a compiler for Ada?