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: 2002-06-17 14:40:33 PST From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:40:18 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software References: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> 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: 62.202.185.126 Message-ID: <3d0e574d_2@news.bluewin.ch> X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1024350029 62.202.185.126 (17 Jun 2002 23:40:29 +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-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26185 Date: 2002-06-17T23:40:18+02:00 List-Id: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote: >Vinzent Hoefler wrote in message news:<3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch>... >> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote: >> >> [...] >> Mmh. How do you convert a "/=" construct then? > >x /= y -- new syntax >x := x / y; -- old syntax |if (x /= y) then | |vs. | |x /= y; No, you don't really want that, do you? And I still consider such constructs as ugly. >> Yup. More or less this is the case. IMO the syntax is well chosen, >> perhaps not perfect, but very good and clear. > >Let me repeat: YOU'S STILL BE ABLE TO USE IT EVEN IF MY PROPOSAL WAS >ADOPTED. Well, well. Don't shout that loud, I can hear you. My point is this would lead to different constructs doing the same, making the code hardly readable. >> >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. > >Maybe. Maybe not. But so what? Simply don't let Ada look like C to convince those people. They won't thank you. The only thing they'd say would be "Fine, looks good for me, but why? I already have my C++." >> >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. :-> > >I would not go that far. Even if the people you are probably targeting would say, "The "begin end" is soooo long, I'd like using my {}, so I won't use Ada."? >I heard that ":=" was originally chosen by some early language >designer (can't remember who) who actually wanted to use "<=", but his >ancient ancient keyboard didn't have "<". You've fooled yourself into >thinking it has some deep meaning. Well. Pascal (and its succesors uses it) and I do not think that Wirth had a such *ancient* keyboard, because he used "<>" instead of "/=". VHDL uses it, too. And it uses "<=" at the same time for slightly different things. So there *must* be some deeper meaning. :-) >Einstein said, "Everything should >be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." So Einstein agrees >with me. Well. So using "=" and "=" for assignments and comparison is more simple. Brainfuck is very simple, too. The thing is you seemed to miss the second part: "but not simpler". Although I don't think that your proposal would actually really lead to something more simple. >> 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. > >Every good C++ programmer knows that "+=" is much more efficient than >"+" for vector/matrix addition because it eliminates the need for >constructing a temporary matrix to hold the sum. Every good compiler should see in its data flow analysis that both statements simply are the same. It *should* not be a matter of how it is *expressed*. So, what am I missing? Vinzent.