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 06:19:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!feeder.via.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.144!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B655FF1.F5268A37@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: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:24:01 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996499157 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:19:17 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:19:17 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10739 Date: 2001-07-30T06:24:01-07:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > > In article <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com>, Russ Paielli wrote: > > Preben Randhol wrote: > > > > 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. > > So what. If they choose not to use Ada because one uses a more readable > syntax, let them. They obviously haven't grasphed the idea of making > good quality software and are only too happy hacking in C or Perl or > whater. Let them. I think rather that this 90% are either ignorant of > Ada or following the main stream towards the cliffs (read C++, Java > etc...). > > > Because "=" is the simplest fricking symbol that could possibly be used > > If you think about it it is more important that your if statments are > correct than your assignments. Just think about this C line: > > if (C = crap) then ... > > and of course it will always be true and will compile. I would rather > have = for this than assignments. This is a red herring. You simply don't allow "if (C = crap) then". As I wrote in my proposal, you use "==" for equality testing IF (IF IF IF IF IF) it causes any confusion with assignment. > > for assignment. Why is this so hard for Ada programmers to understand? > > What's so great about ":="? Why not use "$=" or "%="? > > Because of how colon is used in written language. You can read := as > "set to equal" or only "set to". Then why not just use the colon, without the equals. The ":=" is redundant. I have yet to see ":=" used in anything I have ever read. That is NOT how the colon is used in the written language. > > 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. > > Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree as I see it. Rather make > good free programs in Ada and distribute them under GPL or similar with > source to get more people aware of Ada. That would help Ada more than > changing its syntax. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Not only that, you are putting the cart before the horse. Why do you think so few open-source programs are written in Ada? I just hope folks like you wake up before Ada goes the way of HAL and Jovial. Russ