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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f7230830b229a11 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-01 06:09:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F7AD21B.7030902@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: FW: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:09:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.66.46 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1065013798 165.247.66.46 (Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:09:58 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:09:58 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:67 Date: 2003-10-01T13:09:58+00:00 List-Id: Except that you still have the problem of expanding the validation. Every package you add to the ARM needs sufficient documentation of behavior to make it validatable - and *then* you've got to go write tests to prove that someone's compiler did the job right and **then** someone has to run all that validation and make sure it passes. The costs keep multiplying and pretty soon the vendors are howling because you're driving them into bankruptcy. Adding stuff to the ARM is difficult, costly and slow. I'd prefer not to add things to the ARM that don't involve some structural change to the language (syntax/semantics of the language itself.) Packages that can be implemented totally within the syntax/semantics of Ada are best dealt with in other ways. Add *LOTS* of packages to Ada and make it more useful and convenient. Let's just do it in a less formal way so that we don't kill the vendors with implementation/validation effort. A Conventional Ada Library would accomplish this. MDC Wes Groleau wrote: > > If the IO packages all have the same "shape" > then they should not require a lot of extra > text. > > I see no point in having several pages that > are identical except for part of the type name. > (There's already too much of that in the child > packages of Ada.Text_IO and in Wide_String routines > repeating the text for String routines.) > > If they don't have the same "shape" then it > adds complexity to learning the language. > > It always bugged me that IO for some data types is > Get() and Put() but for others it's Read() and Write(). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ======================================================================