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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-16 12:04:56 PST From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:04:45 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.202.185.120 Message-ID: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1024254292 62.202.185.120 (16 Jun 2002 21:04:52 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-han1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.tesion.net!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26083 Date: 2002-06-16T21:04:45+02:00 List-Id: 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.