Re: Ada Successor Language

[Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com>]

On Thursday, 14 June 2018 22:00:24 UTC+1, Randy Brukardt  wrote:
> "Shark8" <> wrote in message 
> news:1b03e4ff-daf1-4c13-84ef-13aec1ba96e9@googlegroups.com...
> >IMO, the rise to prominence of Unix and C [and arguably C++] is the worst 
> >thing that happened

TBH, standardising on an OS API is not a bad idea, the fact they did it based on C and it's issues was a bad idea. The fact that Unix *was* originally open and availbale to pretty much all was a good thing, but when AT&T (I think) who revoked that, not a good move.


> >"advanced" continuous integration, or the cost of using the FS as a DB, or 
> >the costs of
> >moronically considering unstructured text as THE appropriate/native format 
> >for storing
> >programs].
> 
> While I agree with your basic premise, I'm dubious that there is a better 
> format than unstructured text for programs. There were many such 
> alternatives explored in the 1980's, and they all had the property of making 
> editing more complex. (I tried one for a while when a vendor wanted us to 

I agree that the whole idea that the source should be a DB is a bad idea from the outset. The idea of the APSE was hated from the outset, pretty much every idea that Shark8 has about bringing Ada "back" is from the original bad ideas that everyone hated and there are numerous papers on what was bad at the time. Time to move on and not repeat the mistakes of the past, especially where Ada is concerned.

Luke.