Re: status of Ada STL?

[Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net>]

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:

>Yes, it IS still essentially Ada, because you can still use standard
>Ada compilers. A simple pre-processor could convert the cleaner
>dialect to standard Ada 95, and ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO USE
>STANDARD ADA 95 COULD CONTINUE TO DO SO.

Mmh. How do you convert a "/=" construct then?

And your "anyone who wants..." is no real argument. You then could
write a C++ to Ada-Preprocessor to get the same effect. We can going
on using Ada and the rest of the world can do their C++. Or do the
preprocessor the other way around, it might be easier.

>I really don't understand the objection to my proposal. Ada advocates
>keep telling me they like Ada's syntax and it doesn't need to be
>changed.

Yup. More or less this is the case. IMO the syntax is well chosen,
perhaps not perfect, but very good and clear.

>But the question is not whether CURRENT Ada users like it;
>the question is why so few OTHER programmers are showing any interest
>in Ada, despite it's superior fundamental design.

Because they are using C-like languages.

>When programmers take a first look at a new language, the first thing
>they see is the syntax.

Yes. But it is not this impression only that should let you decide.

>Ever heard the old expression, "The first
>impression is the most important one."? And no, I am not claiming that
>my syntax proposal is the entire answer, but I do believe it would be
>a modest step in the right direction.

And the next step would be to replace "begin end" by "{ }"? Well, if I
wanted C++, I wouldn't have chosen Ada. :->

Personally I like ":=" much more than "=". Although in Ada there would
be no possibility to do "if (a = b)" vs. "if (a == b)" like in C, I
like the slightly mathematically approach of saying "this gives"
instead of "this is equal" for assignments definitely more.

And what I definitely *hate* are those short-cut-constructs like "*="
that never say what they really do. I consider them as totally
unreadable: "a multiplied (with?) equal is 2? - What the heck is
that?" This goes against the data flow. An assignment operation should
be simple, left side is *where* to assign, right side is *what* to
assign.
Today's compilers are smart enough to let you not do such optimization
constructs and could let you use a clear and readable construct for
assigning a new value.

I love the way Ada does. You want an assignment? - So do that. Not the
C way: Ok, you can do it *this way* or you can do it *that way*.

I think the C++-way is wrong, so considering it integrating into an
Ada-like language would be the totally false way, IMO.

Sorry, just my opinion. But a lot of my arguments for the more clear
Ada-syntax simply would vanish in a haze then. :-)


Vinzent.