Re: += in ada

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

Russ wrote:
 >
 >
 > Oh, I see. So efficiency is no longer an issue. Well, excuse me, but
 > I think we'd be better off leaving that judgment to each application
 > developer. Controlling a building temperature is one thing, but
 > delivering a cruise missile to Saddam Hussein's front door is quite
 > another.
 >
 > Do you have any idea whatsoever how much computation is potentially
 > involved in computing optimal conflict-free trajectories for
 > thousands of airplanes? Here's a suggestion: if you don't know WTF
 > you are talking about, STFU.
 >
I build realtime systems every day that have to manage jet engines and
do things in a 1.024 milisecond cycle. I think I know a little something
about efficiency. And having worked on the navigational aspects of the 
Ballistic Missile Defense, I think I might know a little something about 
trajectory computations too. I also know that if I *need* that level of 
efficiency, I can get it. Not necessarily in a way you will consider 
"pretty" - but in a way that I think looks just fine and works well 
without having to modify the Ada compiler to satisfy some C/C++ bigots.

If you would pay attention instead of a) being absolutely convinced of
the complete rightness of your own position and the obvious stupidity of 
anyone who disagrees with you and b) hurling insulting and vulgar 
remarks at them, you might learn something. I *said* in "99% of 
applications". *MOST* software would *NEVER* notice the difference. So 
what you're asking for is not going to make a huge difference to the 
bulk of users and for those few, rare pieces of software (such as my 
engine control) where it *might* matter, we have ways of getting it that 
are neither ugly nor inefficient.

So not only are you exhibiting profound rudeness, but also poor 
engineering judgement. You're supposed to be picking technology for the 
future?


 >
 > Oh, isn't that wonderful. Pascal, Fortran, and Ada. Did you
 > contribute your "wisdom" to the demise of Pascal and Fortran too? I
 > guess you're going for the trifecta with Ada, eh? Ever heard of
 > "three strikes and you're out"?
 >
I don't kill computer languages. Also, none of the above are dead. They 
all have their markets and satisfy them quite well. Just because some 
new language comes along that captures a large part of the market 
doesn't mean that older languages don't have a following or a large 
installed base of software or valid and useful constructs for developing 
software.

Nor does it mean that people who have ever used them are some sort of 
loosers who should be insulted in public by rude posters.

It is an interesting thesis that lack of a "+=" opwerator guarantees the 
demise of a computer language and presence of one will cause programmers 
to flock to its doors in massive numbers. Unfortunately, it is a theory 
that is blissfully unencombered with any facts. At best, you have 
"coincidence" - C/C++ are popular. C/C++ have a "+=" opwerator. The "+=" 
operator is necessary to be popular. It just doesn't logically follow.

 >
 >
 > Oh, so let's neglect the little things and focus on the big things.
 > Here's a little piece of wisdom for you: if you don't bother getting
 > the little things right, you probably won't get the big things right
 > either.

Yup. Quit worrying about the nickles and dimes and go for the things 
that have significant impact. That's pretty fundamental as a premise in 
engineering. A good engineer goes for maximum benefit for $$$ invested 
or labor expended or whatever factor is being optimized - just like a 
good businessman. An engineer who wants to improve the gas mileage he 
gets doesn't put a wax job on his SUV to reduce the air friction level - 
he buys a sub-compact. (Or at least starts stripping weight out of the 
SUV - and not just emptying the ash trays and vaccuuming the dirt out of 
the rugs.)

Maybe you might try considering that your position is not the only truly 
right position here and that all right-thinking people would naturally 
agree with you. Have a little humility and consider that there are 
*other* smart people out here who perhaps have *other* issues that this 
might impact and hence, your proposal is not gaining any traction. You 
might actually learn something about the issues that are involved in 
designing and maintaining a programming language.

Or you can just abandon any concern about Ada and go tell your boss that 
Ada is not worth using on future projects because it doesn't have a "+=" 
operator. Or, if you're so convinced of the value of this, go write a 
pre-compiler that supports it and translates it into appropriate 
procedure calls - that might be a constructive way of demonstrating that 
if Ada only had a "+=" operator, it would gain popularity. Either way. I 
don't care. I'd just suggest dropping the lobbying for it because it 
isn't going to happen.

MDC


-- 
======================================================================
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
======================================================================