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,ca0b11ae1c9a00cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Yongxiang Gao Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to implement Date: 1998/02/18 Message-ID: <34EB634F.2EDF9B80@cs.utexas.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 326376209 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> <34E8AA02.7ED447E0@cs.utexas.edu> <34E91572.CE9CEED2@cs.utexas.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@cs.utexas.edu X-Trace: news.cs.utexas.edu 887841627 8162 gyx 128.83.144.83 Organization: cs.utexas.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Be careful to make sure that these papers that you have dug up (you might > want to give references) are talking about Ada, and not about the now > obsolete Ada 83 language. It sounds like your boss is trying to assemble > a case for not using Ada (without particularly wanting to know anything > about it), in which case, probably any old thing will serve as an excuse, > but if you are genuinely attempting to assess the problem of complexity, > you might want to make sure you have relevant data. I'm afraid they are very old. Two of them address challenges of Ada to formal semantics. One of them is about Axiom Semantics, and it might be a classical paper about Ada. One is about the grammar problems of Ada which makes parsing more difficult. I think it's obvious trivial now. The last one is about the limitation of Ada, it claims that the limitation of Ada causes un-necessary compexity of the language. And it proposes removal of such limitation so as to make Ada simpler and more powerful. Actually, Ada is described as a complex language in a lot of places. However, most of them just address one or two words, so that they are worthless for me. I don't know my boss's motivation. I forward you remarks on the languages to him. And he admits that the languages you mentioned are all very complex. Am I clear? Thanks. Yongxiang -- Home: 1633 Royal Crest, Apt.1146, Austin, TX 78741 Phone: 512-912-0291(H) 512-471-9790(O) Email: gyx@cs.utexas.edu Office: PAI 5.54 Homepage : http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/gyx