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 20:41:25 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!206.13.28.33!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B662A07.966963CF@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> <9k3l9r$10i2$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B656345.64AB603A@sneakemail.com> <9k3oa1$2qg8$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:46:15 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996550883 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:41:23 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:41:23 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10816 Date: 2001-07-30T20:46:15-07:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry wrote: > > Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> writes: > > > My proposal is deliberately designed to have a minimal effect on > > stability. As I said, a relatively simple preprocessor would be able to > > translate back and forth between Ada95 and the syntax I am proposing. If > > you want to continue to use Ada95 syntax, you could do so with impunity. > > What's the problem? > > > > In the meantime, the Ada community seems determined to rearrange the > > chairs on the deck of the Titanic. > > > > I read recently that only one in ten new DoD WEAPONS programs is even > > choosing Ada now that the DoD mandate has been dropped. Don't even ask > > about DoD accounting and supply-chain management programs! > > Yes and that's a chance for Ada. We have more and more non-DoD use of Ada. Ya, and if DoD drops Ada completely we'll be in fabulous shape, eh? > > > > I am trying to sell Ada for a safety-critical program, and I am getting > > little or no support from my organization. I get forwarded email > > messages from full professors of CS at MIT claiming that Ada is being > > replaced by Java even in their studies of software reliability. > > > You Ada guys seem determined to let Ada slip into oblivion. I'll bet HAL > > and Jovial programmers are proud of the stability of their languages > > too. > > Certainly not. But as all of us (stupid as we are :) seems to say "your > proposal will solve just nothing". Ada low usage has certainly nothing to do > with the syntax. Another way to see that is that if the syntax is the problem > then we should certainly fix the programmers! We are talking about _software_ > here not some kind of hacking to produce yet another buggy software. Fact is > Ada has been designed to be easier to read than to write. Why ? Because you > read a program many time but you write it once. The current syntax has been > _designed_ it is not the result of 1 hour work :) > > > I am new to Ada, and I believe that gives me a certain perspective that > > Ada veterans lack. > > That show also that you have not grasped Ada philosophy yet! You just seems to > try to apply to Ada some kind of general recipe that you have learn using > C/C++ or Java. Please let the time give you a better understanding of Ada > underlying concept. > > > I am making a proposal that could save the best > > programming language around, and all I get is a bunch of irrelevant > > criticism. > > :) > > Are you serious ! You are "new to Ada", well you say so, and you are just > trying to "make a proposal" to make it the best language ! So please learn Ada > first then you'll be able to fix it. I am not saying anything about Ada fundamentals. As far as I know, they are great. That is, in fact, why I even care about the syntax. And I don't think I need to be an expert to comment on the syntax. Ada is like a modern car with a fabulous drivetrain and suspension, but an ugly body. How well do you think such a car would sell? And you don't need to be an expert to see that something is wrong. Everyone on this thread seems to think that syntax is completely superficial. Well, it is in a sense, but it is also the interfact that the language presents to the programmer every working minute, and that is important. all I am asking is, why not just get it right? Russ