Re: Ideas for Ada 200X

[Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>]

Russ wrote:

> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbebc2b.ht.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> > Russ wrote:
> > > Secondly, I'll bet that far more programmers use "+=", when given the
> > > option, than don't. How many C++ or Python programmers do you think
> > > write var1 = var1 + var2 when they can write var1 += var2? Not many
> > > good ones, I'll bet.
> >
> > What about *= and /= ?
>
> I think those get used quite a bit too, though probably not as much as
> += and -=.

I think it is important to consider this proposed addition to the language
in terms of the underlying goal of Ada.  I paraphrase,

             A language design that enables a compiler to detect and report
             on the maximum number of errors as early in the development
             process as possible.

The implications of that design goal include a strong model for confirmability,
a high degree of internal consistency, along with a syntax and a semantics that
supports that goal.

Can this goal be supported with +=,  *=,  /=, and other variations from the
C family of languages?  I submit that it can.   Can there be some underlying
benefit from these variations that might improve optimization of code?  I
think that is still not proven, even though there cases in C and C++ where
there is a difference.

Should we do what can be done simply because it can be done?   We must
ask ourselves, "At what price?"    Will it help make Ada more popular?
Hardly.  Will it make it more readable?  Not likely.   Will it improve support
for the above stated goal?   Probably not.

In the end, the argument boils down to the issue of making one language look
like another, and benefits seem marginal, at best.    I have yet to see anyone
cite the benefits for this addition to the language.

Richard Riehle