Re: tagged types extensions - language design question

[Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>]

Tucker Taft wrote:

> -- snip

>
> In general, if you start comparing languages, you are working in
> the "solution" space rather than the "problem" space, and you will
> generally be frustrated if you try to find an exact match in the
> solution space.  The more important issue is whether you can solve
> the problems of interest efficiently and effectively using the
> features of the language you are evaluating.
>
> -- snip

Along this line, what would be nice would be a language that merged the
capabilities of the dynamic binding languages [e.g., Smalltalk] and the
capabilities of the static binding languages [e.g., Ada].  So far the closest
match that I've found is Python/C, though that has a lot of limitations.  Closer
to what I am contemplating would be a merger of Ada95 and Java, without the Ada
code being required to be executing on the JVM.  Is there any good way to call
native Ada methods from Ada-for-the-JVM?  (Of course, Java is no Smalltalk, or
even a Python.  But it does have a rather nice library with lots of dynamic
methods in it.)

To be real specific about what I would like:  Is there any reasonable way to call
GNAT routines from Squeak?  The idea here is that code would be prototyped in
Smalltalk, and then transferred to Ada if it turned out to be used with much
frequency (and it was reasonably easy to convert, of course:  Some dynamic
features just don't convert well).