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 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 19:42:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B661AF7.950C62F7@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) 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: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:41:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.193.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 996547319 24.141.193.224 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:41:59 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:41:59 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10804 Date: 2001-07-31T02:41:59+00:00 List-Id: I can't leave this one alone... (but should)... 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 > 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. > > Here are the syntax changes I propose: > > 1. Eliminate the "end" keyword and make the indentation structure an > inherent part of the syntax, as in Python. Ahem: "end label;" helps to insure that the programmer knows who's "end" it is. It may be inconceivable that programmers have technical problems like this, but it happens. > 2. Eliminate the requirement for a semicolon after each executable > statement, but allow semicolons for combining multiple statements on a > line, as in Python. Blech. What are you going to do for long statements -- make us use backslashes at the end of the line or something (I am Python illiterate, and hope to stay that way.) > 3. Use "=" rather than ":=" for assignment, as in Python. (Use "==" > for equality testing if necessary to avoid confusion with assignment.) I am already ambidextrous : I can use = for C/C++ and := for Ada. > 4. Use "=" instead of "=>" for passing arguments by named association, > as in Python. Blech. That'll make it look like IBM JCL ;-) > 5. Reverse the backward declaration syntax. For example, use "integer: > count" instead of "count: integer", or use "integer in: count" instead > of "count: in integer". Again, I am ambidextrous : I can declare the C/C++ way, or the Ada way. I see no need to change it. > 6. Eliminate the "is" keyword. Depending upon how you format your code, I find it allows a nice line break at the right place if I want it ;-) > 7. Let "use" imply "with" so the tops of files need not be cluttered > with both "with" and "use" for the same package. You really don't understand the use of "use" do you? > A flag on the first line of a source file (e.g., the string "Ada01" > anywhere within a comment) could be used to tell the compiler that the > file needs to be translated to Ada95 before compiling. Eh? (I think "eh" was another language, wasn't it?) > With these changes, I believe Ada would become much more popular and > could eventually become a dominant language. The resulting new > language could be called "Ada01," or something like that. Surely you jest. > Honestly now, which of the following two statements is cleaner and > clearer? > > count: integer := 0; -- old syntax > > integer: count = 0 -- new syntax > > Russ Paielli > http://RussP.org The former is already well established with many millions of lines of code written that way. I see no problem with it as it is. Don't quit your day job. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg