Re: An observation of Ada (may offend)

[hebert@prism.uvsq.fr (Renaud HEBERT)]

In article <3kbkm1$41o@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, bill@valiant.gmrc.gecm.com (R.A.L Williams) writes:
|> In article <VLADIMIR.95Mar13204932> Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
|> 
|> [well-deserved dismissal of student gripe deleted]
|> 
|> : Speaking of why people think Ada is not a good language... it'd be nice
|> : if someone collected the many myths about Ada, and collected them all
|> : together for distribution to the unbelievers. :-)  This would simplify
|> : telling people about Ada, especially if all they've heard was that it's
|> : a "big ugly ancient language used by the government", or that it's too
|> : 'huge' to be worth doing anything with.
|> 
|> Not 'myths' but 'gripes' - its a matter of perspective!
|> 
[things cut]

|> e. No short cut operators (+= etc.) -- sorry, we've had this debate
|> already in another thread, I've heard the objections, I still like the
|> operators.

Could someone summarize the objections against short cut operators, because
I think that they are great and I 'm quite surprise that they don't exist in
Ada. No need to start a flamewar, I suppose that as with many construct there
are pros and cons. It's just that I can't see why those operators could be bad.


-- 
Renaud HEBERT		e-mail: Renaud.Hebert@prism.uvsq.fr