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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86616b1931cbdae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: William Clodius Subject: Re: Is Ada likely to survive ? Date: 1997/08/01 Message-ID: <33E26D4A.41C6@lanl.gov>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 261561015 References: <33D005F2.E5DCD710@kaiwan.com> <33D3EC6E.7920@gsg.eds.com> <33DD01FA.247D@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <5rnige$5d1@portal.gmu.edu> <5rp5dc$mjc$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: Los Alamos National Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > There is far more creative energy going into developing > the logic programming paradigm than there is going into extending Ada, for > example. > This strikes me as a misleading analogy. You are comparing a paradigm (logic programming) with a subset (?) (Ada) of the paradigm "imperative" programming (imperative is probably the wrong term here). More relevant comparisons would be paradigm vs. paradigm, i.e., logic programming (including Prolog, Goedel, Mercury, etc.) vs. "imperative" programming (Pascal, Ada, Fortran, C, C++, etc.), or dialects of Prolog vs. dialects of Ada. I would be surprised if the paradigm vs. paradigm comparison does not reveal more effort going into the imperative programming paradigm. I suspect that Prolog wins over Ada on the subset vs. subset comparison, because most examples of the logic programming paradigm would be considered to be dialects of Prolog, and most examples of the imperative programming paradigm would not be considered to be dialects of Ada. -- William B. Clodius Phone: (505)-665-9370 Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NIS-2 FAX: (505)-667-3815 PO Box 1663, MS-C323 Group office: (505)-667-5776 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Email: wclodius@lanl.gov