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,cfbb90c56a313e70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,cfbb90c56a313e70 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public From: Gautier Subject: Re: From extended Pascals to Ada 95 guide Date: 2000/08/28 Message-ID: <39AA5EC0.A9B8AB6A@maths.unine.ch>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 663453396 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8o3s2a$9ph$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8o4bfq$v0h$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> <8obv01$7hu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <39A991F3.A8D8BED7@easystreet.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 28 Aug 2000 14:44:48 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch Organization: Maths - Uni =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neuch=E2tel?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 2000-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > >> Okay, why isn't Ada a "Wirth-style language", if Modula-3 is? They > >> share more in common with each other than either does with Wirth's > >> Pascal, for instance. > >The principal criterium is size of the language definition/reference > >manual. Modula-3's is under 60 pages, IIRC, much smaller than Ada's. > >And Wirth was some kind of advisor to the M3 design team. Marco: > Why is that the principal criterium? Wirth's conception - it appears - is to have a minimalist language definition, say a BNF codification, some explanations, and bye bye. It's to maintain "simplicity". It's true, it makes books lighter. As a result, you get a myriad of proprietary dialects, libraries, I/O routines etc. IMHO The summit was M2 with different, uncompatible casings for WriteLn ! ______________________________________________________ Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm