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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fe9ec916c5bbbd59 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-17 10:01:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Superassemblers: was Dimensionality Checking Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:06:22 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3C1E341D.95D1898E@adaworks.com> References: Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cd.40 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 17 Dec 2001 18:01:00 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18020 Date: 2001-12-17T18:01:00+00:00 List-Id: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote: > Now let's recall the fact that the Ada is not a problem-oriented language, > but rather a "superassembler". It intentionally and carefully avoids all > paradigms that aren't closely related to the real computer architectures or > to the general software engineering, even if those paradigms are heavily used > in some significant application area. How do you characterize problem-oriented from superassembler? Also, is this bifurcated view just a little too large-grained to be truly useful. Do superassemblers include Java, C++, C#, COBOL, Fortran, and PL/I, and Eiffel? Can we say that those that are not superassemblers inlcude Haskell, Lisp, APL, Prolog, and OCAML? And which ones are truly problem-oriented? Richard Riehle