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,fded8d14c74b14e5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jon S Anthony Subject: Re: Looking for Ada Technique Name and References Date: 2000/02/29 Message-ID: <38BC3496.26FE@synquiry.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 591463154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <88kegp$iso$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> <88kh6q$j4j$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> <88s90i$8mi$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu> <88svc0$nkj$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> <38b32dca@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <38B33F23.4784@synquiry.com> <38BA4C37.919935A8@earthlink.net> <38BB01F3.37BD@synquiry.com> <38BBF58A.ED345864@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: client 951858370 38.151.18.1 (Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:06:10 EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:06:10 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote: > > Well, the topic has really changed, but if you are going to rank languages > based on their support for the functional programming paradigm, I'd give > Ada a fairly significant edge over C and C++ since Agreed. > (1) Ada is lexically scoped ??? Surely you don't mean to imply that C/C++ are dynamically scoped? > (2) Ada allows the use of nested subprograms as subprogram parameters to > generic instantiations, allowing the crude simulation of downward > funargs. Agreed, but this is very crude indeed. > In my experience, this captures some small amount of FP style directly > which is awful in C and unpleasant in C++ (where you can overload "()" > and explicitly pass local state rather than directly referencing variables > from an enclosing scope). I'm still not clear on why you think this means that C/C++ are not lexically scoped (or perhaps "less lexically scoped" than Ada). Certainly passing local state around does not impact this. I agree that there are cases where you _have_ to do this when a lexically scoped access is what you really want. >Re: On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Charles Hixson wrote: >> Even the various dialects of Lisp range from the purely functional (i.e., >> where all constructs can be phrased as a functional call with sugar around >> it) to Common Lisp. And none of these are what I now think of as the >> functional languages: ML, OCaML, etc. > > I don't want to start a FP language war in c.l.ada, but why do you > consider "Pure Lisp", ML and OCaml functional, Common Lisp not? I use > references, arrays, and exceptions in my OCaml code... Good question; direct support for iteration? Then again, he seems to exclude Scheme as well. Shrug. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari