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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-30 05:36:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.183!nnrp5-w.sbc.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> From: Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-20mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:41:17 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: nnrp5-w.sbc.net 996496593 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:36:33 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:36:33 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10730 Date: 2001-07-30T05:41:17-07:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > > In article , Russ wrote: > > The Ada programming language is based on an excellent fundamental > > design, but it is much less popular than it could be because it has an > > awkward, "klunky" syntax. I propose to clean up the syntax by > > borrowing from Python. Python is very popular high level "scripting" > > language with a reputation for promoting clean, clear code. The new > > If you compare it to Perl, yes. > > > syntax could be translated into Ada95 syntax with a relatively simple > > "preprocessor," so existing compilers could still be used, old code > > would continue to work, and programmers could continue to use the old > > syntax if they wish. > > [snipped suggestions] > > > > > Honestly now, which of the following two statements is cleaner and > > clearer? > > > > count: integer := 0; -- old syntax > > Reads: Count is integer and set is to 0 > > > > > integer: count = 0 -- new syntax > > Reads: Integer count equals 0 > > I prefer the old way, as it is easier to read. I'll bet nine out of 10 non-Ada-programmers would disagree with you. And that's part of the reason that nine out of ten programmers (or whatever) are non-Ada-programmers. > Why is it so very important to use = to set a value and then == when you > check it? I have not understood this. Because "=" is the simplest fricking symbol that could possibly be used for assignment. Why is this so hard for Ada programmers to understand? What's so great about ":="? Why not use "$=" or "%="? > I don't at all agree that one should change the syntax. There is no need > to make the programs less readable. You should read your source code > more often than you write it. Besides none of these changes will make > Ada more popular, it will only make it a yet-another-language. Now Ada > has advantages over other languages and one is that it is highly readable. What I am proposing would not make programs "less readable." It would make them MORE readable, especially for new Ada programmers. If long-time Ada programmers are unable to see that, I believe Ada will become an obscure niche language, like HAL or Jovial. That would be a terrible shame, because Ada has excellent fundamentals and could become a dominant language. Russ