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 21:19:43 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: <3B663304.2BB37ABC@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: <3B661AF7.950C62F7@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:24:36 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 996553182 63.194.87.148 (Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:19:42 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:19:42 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10819 Date: 2001-07-30T21:24:36-07:00 List-Id: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote: > > I can't leave this one alone... (but should)... Yes, you should have. :) > 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. That's a valid point. > > 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.) Yes. Most statements take only one line, so you will have far fewer "extensions" than single-line statements. > > 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. I can too. I can also walk on all fours, but I would look like a fool if I did it all the time, wouldn't I? So would you, I bet. > > 4. Use "=" instead of "=>" for passing arguments by named association, > > as in Python. > > Blech. That'll make it look like IBM JCL ;-) Not to me it won't, because I've never seen 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. I'll bet you can walk backwards too. Would you do it without complaining if someone forced you to for the rest of your life? > > 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? I thought I did, but maybe not. > > 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. No, I don't. And please stop calling me Shirly. > > 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. I do. > Don't quit your day job. Quit yours. Russ