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 20:19:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!feeder.via.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.144!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6624E6.DF734E5C@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> <9ff447f2.0107301653.c8f5e94@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:24:22 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996549569 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:19:29 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:19:29 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10810 Date: 2001-07-30T20:24:22-07:00 List-Id: Adrian Hoe wrote: > > Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com>... > > > > 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 "%="? > > "=" means equal. "IF A = 0 THEN" reads as "if A equals 0 then" and > ":=" means assignment. But "x = 4" means that, immediately after the statement is executed, x indeed equals 4. I don't see a problem with using "=" for both assignment AND equality testing (am I missing something?). In Python, the classic C problem of using "=" when you mean "==" is avoided by simply not allowing assignment within an if test. Seems like a simple solution to me. In Ada, the compiler would tell you if you get it wrong. > > 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. > > Honestly, if you think Ada already has excellent fundamentals, why > border a change? Because I'd like to have a language that has both excellent fundamentals AND a clear, minimal syntax. I want it all. And I'm a compulsive minimalist, I guess. It bothers me to see ":=" when "=" will do the job, because it's not minimal. I'm also a fricking perfectionist--just ask my wife. :-) Russ