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,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-17 16:12:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CE58E61.F824208D@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? References: <5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0205151846.4b14a73f@posting.google.com> <3CE3D8B4.C272C737@san.rr.com> <3CE3EA03.394B3EA@despammed.com> <3CE3FFE7.775E5103@san.rr.com> <3CE514CD.DC9C679@despammed.com> <3CE52E77.FC3FC588@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:12:33 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1021677161 151.168.144.162 (Fri, 17 May 2002 18:12:41 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:12:41 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24318 Date: 2002-05-17T18:12:33-05:00 List-Id: > > And I don't see either example as being more difficult than > > Invoke (Name_Of_File); > > Um.... But that doesn't do the same thing. What do you think the semantics If Name_Of_File identifies the linked program, it does the same thing. > of "Invoke" are? Compiling a program and executing it? No, just what I said they are: > > procedure Invoke (Command : String); > > pragma Import (C, Invoke, "exec"); > > -- this won't work, it's merely illustrative > Well, my point is all these things modify the currently-running program, so > yeah, it is a lot harder. If you haven't done a lot of work with this type > of scripting language, then I suspect you aren't really following what I'm > saying here. After 10-15 years of Ada and other languages, including the usual incidental scripting, and having (unfortunately) for the last three having ksh, perl, and TCL be 75% of my job, I suspect I'm not is ignorant as you think. > The rest snipped, because I'm not sure you're making any sense. Maybe you need to read a little more carefully. > There's a tremendous difference between linking to DLLs, generating code on > the fly, and the "exec" system call. It's certainly true that the extreme case I snipped is not appropriate for Ada. That doesn't make the lesser cases in the previous posts difficult. Arguing with you is aiming at a rapidly moving target. "There's a tremendous difference between" the source $Filename that I challenged two posts back and the > ... declares a new type at run-time > based on a user's input, perhaps a derived type of a tagged type, and loads > it into the currently running program, instantiates it, and sticks it into > an array of heterogenous objects all derived from that type, dynamically > dispatching to them. ... of the last post. Although I could do that in Ada, too--but again, I would not recommend it. Because when you go that far, you ARE getting quite difficult. And quite inefficient. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau