Re: What's stopping you from using Ada for your next commercial project?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:17:51 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:58:08 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> If usable, they will replace old computers within a decade. The life cycle
>> of a computer is very short.
> With each algorithms being the result of a big mathematical challenge,  
> difficult to see what could be the every-day-use target applications.

There will be other algorithms if the paradigm really change.

> I tried to look at some “tutorials” last year (ouch, and they dare to name  
> this, “tutorials”!)… I gave up.

New concepts are difficult to gasp. Someone posted a link to an article
about a Lisp clone proposed! (:-))

> Two-states based computer are light years simpler than that.

Proponents of abacus would say same about modern computers.

>> It is always taken as an excuse not to do vital changes, note, before even
>> considering how these changes might look like.
>>
>> You cannot improve language by small incremental changes. If you want  
>> this then keeping it backward compatible is only possible by a big structural
>> change.
> You are right on these points, except that theory is not practice; just a  
> very few things can happens so much suddenly in the human kind worlds.

Language is not a physical system. You can change anything you wanted, you
just have to wish it.

> Even life evolved tiny-step by tiny-step (yes, I known live beings are  
> full of defects, to not talk about human beings).

Really? I was always amused by the natural selection theory. Well,
biologists never cared to learn statistics. But how could DNA evolve by
tiny steps? Where is selection and evolution of DNA encodings? If it was
before why is it on hold now? Looks like some standardization committee
drafted it and managed to enforce one standard across all living species...

> Could you tell more about “keeping it backward compatible is only possible  
> by a big structural change” ?

Per generalization: you express obsolete features in terms of new ones.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de