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: 103376,908bd475d3545aad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin D. Condic" Subject: Re: PL/SQL -> Ada Date: 2000/03/29 Message-ID: <38E2486D.ADB30CCB@quadruscorp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 603886071 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38DD3CA8.BF122672@wa8tzg.org> <38DE46E8.756F5A66@quadruscorp.com> <38DEB5C4.64CACCCC@wa8tzg.org> <38DF90E0.7BE629DD@quadruscorp.com> <38DFFEAE.8C694C4E@wa8tzg.org> <38E0EC54.A38F66CE@quadruscorp.com> <8bql8b$5mc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Sender: "Marin D. Condic" (Unverified) X-Server-Date: 29 Mar 2000 15:18:15 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-29T15:18:15+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > I'm not sure I understand this sentiment. If the compiler pukes on > something you do, and someone explains to you why, how is that person a > problem? > Well as often happens in Ada, a compiler can *correctly* handle something by simply refusing to do it. Representation clauses are a good example. (And, BTW, the usual area where I want to shoot the language lawyers! :-) You try declaring a type and adding a rep clause that is perfectly reasonable and the compiler rejects it for some reason and you get frustrated. The language lawyer says "Well, because this was here and that rule collided with the other and the moon was in this phase and Jupiter aligned with Mars, the compiler was perfectly within its rights to reject your rep clause." My response ends up "That's all very interesting and I'm so happy for you that your compiler doesn't have a bug in it, but how the heck do I get what I *want* out of the damned thing??!?!?!" To the practitioner, the language lawyer can be seen as a stumbling block in the path to getting the job done. I *do* understand the value of language law and I'm *glad* we've got sharp lawyers around to make sure compilers behave according to the rules, but just as real world lawyers can hose-up a perfectly good business deal, language lawyers can do the same in the programming world. If you want specific examples, I'll be happy to discuss them off-line. I deal with lots of different vendors from time to time and don't want to get into besmirching specific products in public when the products are in most other respects quite good. > I'm sure that the C groups are full of language laywers too. Its just > that they spend all of their time telling people why the code did (or > was allowed to do) the unexpected thing it did, rather than why the > compiler didn't allow something to compile. Given the relative amount of > time to track down those two different kinds of problems, I'd be much > happier with the Ada "lawyers". > That, and the "I bet you can't figure out what *this* code does...!" mindset and we are in agreement. "I don't want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do; I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do." -- J.P. Morgan MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m ***PLEASE REMOVE THE "-NOSPAM" PART OF MY RETURN ADDRESS*** Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Because that's where they keep the money." -- Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. =============================================================