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 10.66.246.193 with SMTP id xy1mr30817490pac.44.1432579476835; Mon, 25 May 2015 11:44:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.27.212 with SMTP id v20mr136525obg.20.1432579476756; Mon, 25 May 2015 11:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!j8no9369454igd.0!news-out.google.com!kd3ni27623igb.0!nntp.google.com!j8no9369453igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 11:44:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.0.18.159; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.0.18.159 References: <127b004d-2163-477b-9209-49d30d2da5e1@googlegroups.com> <59a4ee45-23fb-4b0e-905c-cc16ce46b5f6@googlegroups.com> <46b2dce1-2a1c-455d-b041-3a9d217e2c3f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3277d769-6503-4c7f-885f-3a730762b620@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it? From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 18:44:36 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25986 Date: 2015-05-25T11:44:36-07:00 List-Id: On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 1:14:56 AM UTC-6, jan.de... wrote: >=20 >=20 > 1. Does a program become easier to prove formally when the language has m= ore baroque features? Quite possibly. One simple instance of this is case-coverage -- Ada is one of the [relative= ly] few languages that requires all possibilities to be specified, this is = due to the prevalence of C and its influence on language design (in particu= lar its choice to make enumerations an alias for int-values) -- wich is a f= eature Ada has had since its inception. > 2. Does it become easier to write when the language has more baroque feat= ures? Quite possibly. The TASK construct provides a fairly natural way to implement a protocol, i= n addition to providing a logically parallel thread. There's also Ada's GEN= ERIC, which is more complex than many other languages, which can have value= s in addition to types (or packages) as parameters. > 3. Does the program production process become faster when the language us= ed has more baroque features?=20 Quite possibly. Consider Ada's package system: it is essentially a module-system, but in co= njunction with generics provides a much saner parametrization/template mech= anism than text-substitution mechanisms. > 4. Does the program become easier to maintain when the language has more = baroque features?=20 Given the above: quite possibly. (You have to take advantage of the facilities to gain the benefit, obviousl= y.) > 5. Do we attract more programmers to a language that is clearly over-spec= ified and difficult to learn? I'm not sure it's difficult to learn. It's different than the C-family syntax that many younger programmers are f= amiliar with, but that says nothing about the ease of learning. Further, gi= ven the results of McCormick's model-train course I would venture to say th= at it isn't too difficult -- now, granted there is a dearth of easy-to-find= tutorials and fun/open projects (esp for Ada 2012)... but that is a tangen= tial issue.