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: 2001-08-07 00:29:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!206.13.28.183!nnrp5-w.sbc.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B6F99FC.F3CDB609@sneakemail.com> From: "Russ P." <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: <3B676974.C80C72E5@sneakemail.com> <3B6F5893.8F620D80@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:34:20 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: nnrp5-w.sbc.net 997169346 63.194.87.148 (Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:29:06 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:29:06 PDT Organization: SBC Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11461 Date: 2001-08-07T00:34:20-07:00 List-Id: Lao Xiao Hai wrote: > > This has been an entertaining discussion. There are several points that > Russ makes that deserve some careful response. Some earlier messages > covered some of the points. Most of those responses dealt with the > syntactic issues. I choose to respond to his "with" / "use" observation > since this is at the heart of Ada's design. As a prefatory > remark, we note that the default of every Ada construct intended to > be safe. One can take a default of safe and relax it to a construct that > is less safe. It is more difficult in a language where the default is > unsafe, > to promote a construct to one that is more safe. That's all very interesting, and I appreciate the explanation. However, I did not make any statement whatsoever regarding the advisibility of using "use" or the proper way to use it. The fact is that if you put "use SomePackage" at the top of a file, it doesn't make sense unless you have already put "with SomePackage" (or am I still missing something?). All I am saying is that you shouldn't need the "with" statement if it is already implied. Now, if that causes some logical problems, then I guess it can't be done. As for the other syntactical suggestions I made, I am still 100% convinced that the Fortran/Python syntax for assignment, named association, and lack of semicolons is better and cleaner than Ada syntax. If you think that bad syntax should simply be left alone for the sake of stability, than I disagree, but that's a judgment call. However, if you've talked yourself into believing that the basic Ada syntax is somehow safer or more precise, then you've talked yourself into believing nonsense. Ada is a great language for safety-critical systems--no doubt about it. However, I think it could also be better than it is for rapid prototyping if the syntax is cleaned up. Oh, I realize that other languages will always be better than Ada for rapid prototyping, but that is beside the point. What if I am doing rapid prototyping of algorithms for a system that will eventually be safety-critical? For obvious reasons, I may be better off doing the prototyping and the final design in the same language. That's what I actually want to do, folks. Russ P. http://RussP.org